A-Gone traded to the Red Sox for prospects

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, [expletive]. That's annoying.

[Clem Fandango]

Sounds like if we had included Castro we probably would've nabbed him. Would that have been worth it?

[Soul]

jersey said it -- that blurb is incomprehensible.

[mookie]

Sounds like if we had included Castro we probably would've nabbed him. Would that have been worth it?

 

No, no, and no. Our farm just got decently good. I am really glad the cubs didn't drop a couple of choice prospects for Adrian Gonzalez.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know what "esp makeup" means, but the rest is clearly saying that the front office guys with the Padres used to work in the front office of the Red Sox and felt more comfortable going with a package that had prospects they were more familiar with.

[mookie]

I think that is shorthand for especially

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I got that part, but not the "makeup" part. I guess the "makeup" of the prospects, but that sounds odd.

[Tracer Bullet]

Yeah, I got that part, but not the "makeup" part. I guess the "makeup" of the prospects, but that sounds odd.

 

mental? personality?

[Sammy Sofa]

Gotta stay away from those insane and deviant Cubs prospects.

[tfarks]

It seems like makeup has been used in scout talk since 1871.

 

I've never cared to look into it but in context it usually references personality (i.e. gamer) or physical characteristics (i.e. strength).

[davell]

Both Stark and Heyman have recently tweeted that the White Sox were who the Red Sox were concerned about. We got involved late evidently, which pisses me off if true, as we should have been involved all along. Not to mention the fact that there's no package the White Sox could offer that we couldn't have trumped rather easily......

[jersey cubs fan]

Both Stark and Heyman have recently tweeted that the White Sox were who the Red Sox were concerned about. We got involved late evidently, which pisses me off if true, as we should have been involved all along. Not to mention the fact that there's no package the White Sox could offer that we couldn't have trumped rather easily......

 

I'd guess the Cubs didn't want to trade for and then sign the guy, and only got involved late when they realized a deal was going to happen with somebody. They also might just want their name out there on big guys while settling for the mediocre 3rd tier guys they were after from the start.

[davell]

Both Stark and Heyman have recently tweeted that the White Sox were who the Red Sox were concerned about. We got involved late evidently, which pisses me off if true, as we should have been involved all along. Not to mention the fact that there's no package the White Sox could offer that we couldn't have trumped rather easily......

 

I'd guess the Cubs didn't want to trade for and then sign the guy, and only got involved late when they realized a deal was going to happen with somebody. They also might just want their name out there on big guys while settling for the mediocre 3rd tier guys they were after from the start.

 

I agree on both of those points. Which is really disheartening considering all the money coming off the books next year. I'm really starting to think we're going to settle into a payroll around 100-110 mill longterm. Which would make AZPhil's comment about Ricketts wanting to run us like the Twins is much more accurate than being ran like the Red Sox.

[Sammy Sofa]

Both Stark and Heyman have recently tweeted that the White Sox were who the Red Sox were concerned about. We got involved late evidently, which pisses me off if true, as we should have been involved all along. Not to mention the fact that there's no package the White Sox could offer that we couldn't have trumped rather easily......

 

I'd guess the Cubs didn't want to trade for and then sign the guy, and only got involved late when they realized a deal was going to happen with somebody. They also might just want their name out there on big guys while settling for the mediocre 3rd tier guys they were after from the start.

 

I agree on both of those points. Which is really disheartening considering all the money coming off the books next year. I'm really starting to think we're going to settle into a payroll around 100-110 mill longterm. Which would make AZPhil's comment about Ricketts wanting to run us like the Twins is much more accurate than being ran like the Red Sox.

 

Hey, I'd happily take being the Twins over the last decade.

[SouthSideRyan]

Both Stark and Heyman have recently tweeted that the White Sox were who the Red Sox were concerned about. We got involved late evidently, which pisses me off if true, as we should have been involved all along. Not to mention the fact that there's no package the White Sox could offer that we couldn't have trumped rather easily......

 

I'd guess the Cubs didn't want to trade for and then sign the guy, and only got involved late when they realized a deal was going to happen with somebody. They also might just want their name out there on big guys while settling for the mediocre 3rd tier guys they were after from the start.

 

I agree on both of those points. Which is really disheartening considering all the money coming off the books next year. I'm really starting to think we're going to settle into a payroll around 100-110 mill longterm. Which would make AZPhil's comment about Ricketts wanting to run us like the Twins is much more accurate than being ran like the Red Sox.

 

Hey, I'd happily take being the Twins over the last decade.

 

Too bad the Cubs think Nick Punto and Alexi Casilla are the reasons for their success.

[UMFan83]

Honestly, I don't mind a 100-110 mil payroll. We don't need a $140+ million payroll to be good. a 110 million payroll if you are spending good money on scouting and drafting should be enough. We opened up the pursestrings to $140 million and look what it got us....4 more years of Soriano, 3 more years of Zambrano, another year of Fukudome and Silva (bradley). We're stuck in limbo because JH threw a bunch of money at players that turned out to be nowhere worth that money.

 

Bottom line, 1) I don't trust Jim Hendry to spend our money wisely. 2) I don't trust Jim Henrdy to efficiently spend on a smaller payroll. 3) I do sort of trust Wilken to draft for us as long as he is getting a big market budget to use on scouting and drafting.

[davell]

Yeah, I don't realistically have an issue if our payroll dropped to the 110 range. You can build an excellent ballclub with that. But, as others have already said, I DO have a serious problem with Hendry being the one to try to do it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I don't realistically have an issue if our payroll dropped to the 110 range. You can build an excellent ballclub with that. But, as others have already said, I DO have a serious problem with Hendry being the one to try to do it.

 

I have a major issue with that. First, there's no reason why it should drop that far. Second, that will result in a very painful couple of seasons and no ability to go out of the system to get impact players for at least a few years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I don't realistically have an issue if our payroll dropped to the 110 range. You can build an excellent ballclub with that. But, as others have already said, I DO have a serious problem with Hendry being the one to try to do it.

 

I have a major issue with that. First, there's no reason why it should drop that far. Second, that will result in a very painful couple of seasons and no ability to go out of the system to get impact players for at least a few years.

 

Could not agree more. If the Cubs HAD to keep their budget at that range, OK, fine, it's more than workable, but ultimately they don't. In the end this is a team that makes ungodly amounts of money, especially when they have even the slightest bit of sustained success.

[jersey cubs fan]

Just because spending more does not guarantee success does not mean spending less is a better way to go.

[davell]

Yeah, I don't realistically have an issue if our payroll dropped to the 110 range. You can build an excellent ballclub with that. But, as others have already said, I DO have a serious problem with Hendry being the one to try to do it.

 

I have a major issue with that. First, there's no reason why it should drop that far. Second, that will result in a very painful couple of seasons and no ability to go out of the system to get impact players for at least a few years.

 

Could not agree more. If the Cubs HAD to keep their budget at that range, OK, fine, it's more than workable, but ultimately they don't. In the end this is a team that makes ungodly amounts of money, especially when they have even the slightest bit of sustained success.

 

I should probably backtrack a tad here. Especially since Ricketts has said 2010 was a profitable year for the Cubs. I don't mean to KEEP it there forever, not by any stretch. But, if 2012-2013 we were around that number(and spending tons on player development in the process) I wouldn't have an issue with it. Reasoning it out, if the Cubs have a bunch of good, young cheap guys, the payroll WILL drop some, unless the Cubs go out and "spend, just to spend" and add on some more burdensome contracts in the process. Even the Red Sox payroll dropped a decent amount for a year or two, before heading back skyward in 2010.

[UMFan83]

Just because spending more does not guarantee success does not mean spending less is a better way to go.

 

I just don't want to be in a situation where our payroll can get to $140m one year, so our payroll is at 138 mil, then we need to aquire a SP at the deadline, so the payroll goes up to $145, then we need to resign our 3B, so now it's up to $150. And then all the sudden we are spending more than intended, and become the Florida Marlins for the next 3 years while we wait for our payroll to go down. I wouldnt mind a $120 million payroll if we knew with a contending team we could go up to $140.

 

Or I guess the best solution is to hire a GM that can plan for stuff like this ahead of time so that we don't have to wait 3 years for all the big contracts to start coming off the books.

[jersey cubs fan]

Just because spending more does not guarantee success does not mean spending less is a better way to go.

 

I just don't want to be in a situation where our payroll can get to $140m one year, so our payroll is at 138 mil, then we need to aquire a SP at the deadline, so the payroll goes up to $145, then we need to resign our 3B, so now it's up to $150. And then all the sudden we are spending more than intended, and become the Florida Marlins for the next 3 years while we wait for our payroll to go down. I wouldnt mind a $120 million payroll if we knew with a contending team we could go up to $140.

 

Or I guess the best solution is to hire a GM that can plan for stuff like this ahead of time so that we don't have to wait 3 years for all the big contracts to start coming off the books.

 

There's no reason why a reasonable budget and long range planning can't solve that situation without having to dip down to $110m, ever.

[UMFan83]

The problem is our GM's idea of long range planning is to make all his biggest contracts backloaded so they fit into this year's budget.

[champaignchris]

You know that beer commercial that's out right now where the hostage takers make up a list of ridiculous demands. I imagine the Milwaukee Brewer front office is doing the same thing right now with the Cubs in their negotiations to "free" Prince Fielder.