Alfonso Soriano returns to New York Yankees

[SilenceS]

Your post is laughable. Soriano was such a leader when he came over to the Cubs that management was worried about hurting his feelings when he needed to be dropped in the order. That isn't leadership. Soriano became a leader the last couple of seasons, because he finally got old. Sosa was a leader? By blasting his music in the locker room? By leaving the clubhouse while a game was still going on? By using a corked bat? By using roids? Sosa and Soriano don't belong in the same discussion as Dawson and Sandberg when it comes to leadership.

I would take Sosa over all of them in a heart beat. Unless, we are counting roids against him then that's a tough choice.

 

[FirstTimer]

I would take Sosa over all of them in a heart beat. Unless, we are counting roids against him then that's a tough choice.

As a leader?

Its Ryne, Dawson,....... late career Soriano,..............................................Sosa.

As a player I almost refuse to rank Sosa because I think his entire career and value is based around steroids.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I would take Sosa over all of them in a heart beat. Unless, we are counting roids against him then that's a tough choice.

As a leader? If there were M&M's in the clubhouse he would have demanded the red ones be removed from his sight. I can think of no greater example of "me" on the Cubs than Sosa.

 

[SilenceS]

As a leader? If there were M&M's in the clubhouse he would have demanded the red ones be removed from his sight. I can think of no greater example of "me" on the Cubs than Sosa.

Meant as a player not leader. My bad

 

[CSF77]

Soriano was such a leader when he came over to the Cubs that management was worried about hurting his feelings when he needed to be dropped in the order. That isn't leadership. Soriano became a leader the last couple of seasons, because he finally got old. Sosa was a leader? By blasting his music in the locker room? By leaving the clubhouse while a game was still going on? By using a corked bat? By using roids? Sosa never found a cut-off man he couldn't overthrow. Quality leadership there, if you want to show people how a team sport is all about yourself. Sosa doesn't belong in the same discussion as Dawson and Sandberg when it comes to leadership.

Ok.....and when he left the whole team was in shock and said that they lost their leader. We have to look at it as he was a Cub for 7 years and saw a bunch of transitions. Add to it he matured as a human. Took on a role as a leader and mentor. What you posted is a short sighted view based off a personal dislike towards a player. Silly really. It wasn't your paycheck that was spent to bring him over.

 

[CSF77]

Sosa: as a player. Ya he most likely took roids and he should be taken out of concideration for the hall. His BS taking off eay on the last game. Pure frustration I believe to a disappointing year. That team was stacked with talent and came up short. He was past his prime and he was not going to take the Cubs to a series. 2003 was their shot at it and not digging up that old wound. Almost broke my TV that day.... Basically it is a team sport and it takes a complete team to win games. From the D. To pitching. The pen coaching, management. Dumb luck. Like not going through injury strings or as Jed has done built up depth in AAA as an insurance policy. I like that part of what they are doing. Yes it takes talent to win but Sosa didn't win until they invested into a team. As in Alou, developing Wood, Prior and Z. A little of doing both. Traded for A-Ram. It ended up being a strong play off team that was not expected. Did it sustain? No. Injury hit the staff and the farm did not have any solid arms. They didn't invest into a replacement either. So a lack of depth of pitching at AAA was a problem. Again that part I like what is happening. But to the point on Sosa: before 98 was a fun year but it was a team effort to get there. Wood's rookie year. Tapini learned how to pitch and Trax had a decent year. Team still lacked quality talent and lost to the Braves. SP was the main issue. 2008 team SP was built for the season grind. RH pitching did shut them down but that team was built to generate runs and had a staff built to keep them in games. Sori's name gets brought up for this year but again it was a team effort. The Cubs got swept. Not Sori did. Dude is only 1 guy.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Ok.....and when he left the whole team was in shock and said that they lost their leader. We have to look at it as he was a Cub for 7 years and saw a bunch of transitions. Add to it he matured as a human. Took on a role as a leader and mentor. What you posted is a short sighted view based off a personal dislike towards a player. Silly really. It wasn't your paycheck that was spent to bring him over.

Lol. My posting of Sosa had nothing to do with like or dislike. If he matured as a human why was it at the end if his career that he walked out while the game was still going on? There is only one answer to that question and the answer refutes your post. I didn't ever claim that it was my money that "brought him over". That has to be one of the most bizarre, poorly constructed arguments in the history of the internet.

 

[CSF77]

I see the miss understanding: Sori matured and became respected later on. I agree for the most part that Sosa was an asshat but he did put his teams on his shoulders and forced wins. Getting to missing cut offs. Wow that makes him a bad guy right? So if I over throw to my kid it must make me pretty bad as a role model. The blasting his boom. Ya it is annoying if the team didn't care for it and he was the "star" and did what he damn well pleased. (Ear buds hint hint). Sori's early Cubs years I can get it if he was self centered. He just got paid and let's face it no one wants to be told "you can not cut it". He seems like the type. It looks like it took life experience, IE: personel failure for the reality to sink in. Add to it Hendry seemed to let his guys do what they wanted to. When the Ricketts took over is when change started to happen. In the end Sori upped his game under this coaching staff and showed a willingness to better himself. Last year was a result. He was basically healthy and improved his D in LF. So it seems he was bull headed but it also took the right situation for him to progress. All I have to say is if he was still a Cub today it would not make me sad at all. At least he has a chance at winning something now.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I see the miss understanding: Sori matured and became respected later on. I agree for the most part that Sosa was an asshat but he did put his teams on his shoulders and forced wins. Getting to missing cut offs. Wow that makes him a bad guy right? So if I over throw to my kid it must make me pretty bad as a role model. The blasting his boom. Ya it is annoying if the team didn't care for it and he was the "star" and did what he damn well pleased. (Ear buds hint hint). Sori's early Cubs years I can get it if he was self centered. He just got paid and let's face it no one wants to be told "you can not cut it". He seems like the type. It looks like it took life experience, IE: personel failure for the reality to sink in. Add to it Hendry seemed to let his guys do what they wanted to. When the Ricketts took over is when change started to happen. In the end Sori upped his game under this coaching staff and showed a willingness to better himself. Last year was a result. He was basically healthy and improved his D in LF. So it seems he was bull headed but it also took the right situation for him to progress. All I have to say is if he was still a Cub today it would not make me sad at all. At least he has a chance at winning something now.

You got it. We're on the same page, CSF77.

 

[dabynsky]

Well I suppose I should speak on the article I wrote nearly a year ago. I think there is some extreme viewpoints going on here and my position as usual lies in the middle. The point of the article was why is Soriano viewed in such a different light than Andre Dawson and my conclusion was basically that the way they were acquired dictated a lot of the reason why they were viewed the way they were a year ago. Now with Soriano being traded there has been a shifting in views on him from the media over that past year, and so the storyline that I wrote a year ago is now being played up by many.

Soriano has a lot of similarities with Andre Dawson in terms of career arc and numbers. However, FT is correct that Dawson's numbers are significantly better when considering era. Dawson made it in as a fringe Hall of Famer, imo, with a lot of being due to steroid backlash and so an overvaluing of numbers by a guy that was viewed as untainted due to his era. And I love Dawson. Dawson, Mark Grace, and Ryne Sandberg is what I grew up with as the Cubs and my first experience as Wrigley. Only way Soriano gets in is if he can pile up some numbers in a year or two and gets the same "upgrading" of numbers as a player viewed as clean, as far as I can tell, in an unclean era.

 

[SilenceS]

Well I suppose I should speak on the article I wrote nearly a year ago. I think there is some extreme viewpoints going on here and my position as usual lies in the middle. The point of the article was why is Soriano viewed in such a different light than Andre Dawson and my conclusion was basically that the way they were acquired dictated a lot of the reason why they were viewed the same way at that time a year ago. Now with Soriano being traded there has been a shifting in views on him from the media over that past year, and so the storyline that I wrote a year ago is now being played up by many.

Soriano has a lot of similarities with Andre Dawson in terms of career arc and numbers. However, FT is correct that Dawson's numbers are significantly better when considering era. Dawson made it in as a fringe Hall of Famer, imo, with a lot of being due to steroid backlash and so an overvaluing of numbers by a guy that was viewed as untainted due to his era. And I love Dawson. Dawson, Mark Grace, and Ryne Sandberg is what I grew up with as the Cubs and my first experience as Wrigley. Only way Soriano gets in is if he can pile up some numbers in a year or two and gets the same "upgrading" of numbers as a player viewed as clean, as far as I can tell, in an unclean era.

Agree with your post.

 

[FirstTimer]

Well I suppose I should speak on the article I wrote nearly a year ago. I think there is some extreme viewpoints going on here and my position as usual lies in the middle. The point of the article was why is Soriano viewed in such a different light than Andre Dawson and my conclusion was basically that the way they were acquired dictated a lot of the reason why they were viewed the way they were a year ago. Now with Soriano being traded there has been a shifting in views on him from the media over that past year, and so the storyline that I wrote a year ago is now being played up by many.

Soriano has a lot of similarities with Andre Dawson in terms of career arc and numbers. However, FT is correct that Dawson's numbers are significantly better when considering era. Dawson made it in as a fringe Hall of Famer, imo, with a lot of being due to steroid backlash and so an overvaluing of numbers by a guy that was viewed as untainted due to his era. And I love Dawson. Dawson, Mark Grace, and Ryne Sandberg is what I grew up with as the Cubs and my first experience as Wrigley. Only way Soriano gets in is if he can pile up some numbers in a year or two and gets the same "upgrading" of numbers as a player viewed as clean, as far as I can tell, in an unclean era.

Disagree completely.

 

[dabynsky]

Disagree completely.

Fair enough, I don't really care that much about the Hall to be honest. But it seemed like his numbers were relatively weak for an OF to make it.

 

[FirstTimer]

Fair enough, I don't really care that much about the Hall to be honest. But it seemed like his numbers were relatively weak for an OF to make it.

Based on?

 

[JosMin]

Fair enough, I don't really care that much about the Hall to be honest. But it seemed like his numbers were relatively weak for an OF to make it.

I think part of the reason why some people feel he's a "weak" Hall of Famer is that the end of his career was extremely forgettable. The big thing for me about Dawson is that he was such an exceptional player from '77 to 91' -- power threat, an absolute laser for an arm, great defense (8 Gold Gloves), RoY, MVP, and he was even a threat to steal bases during his 20s. His legs got murdered playing on the turf in Montreal all those years, so it's a testament to his will and ability that he was able to be an elite player well into his 30s. I agree that when you look at his numbers, they don't lop your head off. But Dawson was an animal.

 

[dabynsky]

Based on?

OPS+ compared to other guys that I think are more no doubt Hall of Famers like Billy Williams or Dave Winfield is one example. As I said I am willing to concede the point since I don't really care that much about who is a Hall of Famer or not.

 

[dabynsky]

I think part of the reason why some people feel he's a "weak" Hall of Famer is that the end of his career was extremely forgettable. The big thing for me about Dawson is that he was such an exceptional player from '77 to 91' -- power threat, an absolute laser for an arm, great defense (8 Gold Gloves), RoY, MVP, and he was even a threat to steal bases during his 20s. His legs got murdered playing on the turf in Montreal all those years, so it's a testament to his will and ability that he was able to be an elite player well into his 30s. I agree that when you look at his numbers, they don't lop your head off. But Dawson was an animal.

I am well aware of Dawson's numbers and career arc JosMin. I know all too well that he was an elite/power speed guy in Montreal that transitioned into just a power guy once he made it to Chicago (one of those comparisons that I mentioned in the now oft mentioned article I wrote a year ago).

 

[JosMin]

I am well aware of Dawson's numbers and career arc JosMin. I know all too well that he was an elite/power speed guy in Montreal that transitioned into just a power guy once he made it to Chicago (one of those comparisons that I mentioned in the now oft mentioned article I wrote a year ago).

So then you understand where myself and FT come from. I'm not trolling, simply justifying our stance.

 

[dabynsky]

So then you understand where myself and FT come from. I'm not trolling, simply justifying our stance.

I understand your position in that Dawson was clearly a better player than Soriano. I understand that Dawson isn't the worst Hall of Famer, and I love the guy and appreciate him being in the Hall. I think we disagree simply in the degree to which he is all of those things.

 

[SilenceS]

So, what if Soriano plays another 3 to 4 years and average 20 homers a season? Say he ends up with 450 plus homers plus 300 steals. Does he not get anymore consideration to people?

Oh and I believe SB's are completely undervalued in the hall. Hence, why Tim Raines is having trouble getting in.