Cubs talking to Texas?

[Exile on Waveland]

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

[Sammy Sofa]

Imagine if the Cubs had an impressive rebound season after a horrible won and were competitive.

 

Oh right, it did, JUST FOUR [expletive] YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WON THE [expletive] DIVISION AFTER GOING 66-96 THE YEAR BEFORE.

[NCCubFan]

And it also happened in 2003 after going 67-95 in 2002.

[Elrhino]

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

 

And 10-12 other teams suck again in 2011 after they sucked the year before, including the Cubs. Just because something has been done before doesn't make it a likely scenario, nor should the Cubs front office make decisions under a polyanna-ish assumption that they're going to be the exception from the norm.

[Guest]

No one said it was the most likely scenario, you were the one saying it's impossible.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

 

And 10-12 other teams suck again in 2011 after they sucked the year before, including the Cubs. Just because something has been done before doesn't make it a likely scenario, nor should the Cubs front office make decisions under a polyanna-ish assumption that they're going to be the exception from the norm.

 

Roughly half the teams with losing records last year have winning records this year.

[XZero771679666304]

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

 

And 10-12 other teams suck again in 2011 after they sucked the year before, including the Cubs. Just because something has been done before doesn't make it a likely scenario, nor should the Cubs front office make decisions under a polyanna-ish assumption that they're going to be the exception from the norm.

 

 

There's nothing pollyanna-ish about it, given that:

 

A) It happens more often than you think, and the Cubs went from being awful to division titles as recently as 2002-03 and 2006-07.

 

B) Money is coming off the books, FAs are out there that fill needs and we have a core of good, young, low cost players to complement any big name additions.

 

C) Look at the records of the Cards, Crew and Reds. It's not going to take a quantum leap to compete in this division. And with the potential departures of Pujols and Fielder, the balance will shift to some degree regardless.

 

D) No team with the Cubs' resources can be counted out so far ahead of time.

 

There's no reason to say the Cubs can't compete in 2012 (at this point).

[SouthSideRyan]

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

 

Where are we gonna find our Lyle Overbay and Kevin Correia at?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We basically have two options:

 

1) Spend the money we have coming off the books in an attempt to become competitive immediately. An attempt that, granted, may fail.

 

2) Drop the payroll by tens of millions of dollars, put the difference in Ricketts' pocket, and field non-prospects like Campana all over the field. We'd have a guaranteed awful team and it would destroy the team's revenue stream.

 

It's not like we have a bunch of MLB-ready prospects to throw into all these spots. We'll have openings, we'll have money, there's no reason not to spend it.

[Elrhino]

I hardly see how trading 1.5 years of Marlon Byrd for a 25 year old major league ready (albeit unproven) player is tantamount to plunging the payroll down to <$50 million and resigning ourselves to decades of door mat baseball. It's simply a non contending team trading off an immediate asset for a potential long term asset.

 

Yes, there is danger in becoming the Royals. There is also danger in becoming the Minaya Mets, spending payroll just to spend payroll and signing boatloads of bad contracts convincing yourself your bad and deeply flawed team is just one big spending binge away from contending, and hamstringing yourself for years in the process. In general, I would prefer the Cubs to take the longview.

[jersey cubs fan]

We basically have two options:

 

1) Spend the money we have coming off the books in an attempt to become competitive immediately. An attempt that, granted, may fail.

 

2) Drop the payroll by tens of millions of dollars, put the difference in Ricketts' pocket, and field non-prospects like Campana all over the field. We'd have a guaranteed awful team and it would destroy the team's revenue stream.

 

It's not like we have a bunch of MLB-ready prospects to throw into all these spots. We'll have openings, we'll have money, there's no reason not to spend it.

 

No, those aren't the two options.

[UMFan83]

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

 

and the thing about the Pirates is that for the most part its not a bunch of young prospects from a decade of rebuilding that is giving them their improvement.

 

It's minor free agent signings (Corriea) and lightly regarded young players acquired through traded (Morton, McDonald) that have led them to this "revival" (that and a bit of luck due to a fortunate run differential and a weak NL Central).

 

Most of the younger prospects they expected to be pretty big factors for a contending Pirates team (Alvaraz, Tabata, Walker) have if anything disapointed.

 

So year, its not overly likely the Cubs can turn it around next year without major FA acquisitions, but its not at all unheard of.

[SouthSideRyan]

We basically have two options:

 

1) Spend the money we have coming off the books in an attempt to become competitive immediately. An attempt that, granted, may fail.

 

2) Drop the payroll by tens of millions of dollars, put the difference in Ricketts' pocket, and field non-prospects like Campana all over the field. We'd have a guaranteed awful team and it would destroy the team's revenue stream.

 

It's not like we have a bunch of MLB-ready prospects to throw into all these spots. We'll have openings, we'll have money, there's no reason not to spend it.

 

No, those aren't the two options.

 

Nope, the only option is to spend the money we have coming off the books. You don't punt a season before it starts with a 130M payroll unless it's a roster full of albatrosses.

[UMFan83]

We basically have two options:

 

1) Spend the money we have coming off the books in an attempt to become competitive immediately. An attempt that, granted, may fail.

 

2) Drop the payroll by tens of millions of dollars, put the difference in Ricketts' pocket, and field non-prospects like Campana all over the field. We'd have a guaranteed awful team and it would destroy the team's revenue stream.

 

It's not like we have a bunch of MLB-ready prospects to throw into all these spots. We'll have openings, we'll have money, there's no reason not to spend it.

 

I say we spend it on upgrading the Wrigley Field bathrooms and to build a Krispy Kreme in the Wrigley front office so that hopefully we can convince Jim Hendry not to bolt for another team.

[SouthSideRyan]

So year, its not overly likely the Cubs can turn it around next year without major FA acquisitions, but its not at all unheard of.

 

What's certifiably insane are those that say the Cubs are destined to win 75 games WITH major FA acquisitions.

[CubColtPacer]

I hardly see how trading 1.5 years of Marlon Byrd for a 25 year old major league ready (albeit unproven) player is tantamount to plunging the payroll down to <$50 million and resigning ourselves to decades of door mat baseball. It's simply a non contending team trading off an immediate asset for a potential long term asset.

 

Yes, there is danger in becoming the Royals. There is also danger in becoming the Minaya Mets, spending payroll just to spend payroll and signing boatloads of bad contracts convincing yourself your bad and deeply flawed team is just one big spending binge away from contending, and hamstringing yourself for years in the process. In general, I would prefer the Cubs to take the longview.

 

Definitely. I don't think anybody wants the Cubs to become the Mets (or even the Cubs of the last few years). Decide on which positions you're going to let young guys grow in. Find impact guys at the other positions and be willing to sign them to big deals. If there are positions left over, then try to find short term fixes that don't hamstring you if they don't turn out well.

 

In this case of the 2011-2012 offseason, they can sign their impact guy (Pujols or Fielder), identify two positions where prospects can play (CF and 2B) and then between 3B and SP they can sign either one impact guy and a bargain guy or two short term fixes (which would probably be Ramirez+risky starting pitcher). Doing that gives the Cubs a decent chance to compete next year while still preserving tons of flexibility since they would only have 3 guys signed beyond 2012 (maybe 4), 2 beyond 2013, and 1 after 2014 (assuming that Fielder/Pujols get a long deal and they don't sign Ramirez or the pitcher to more than 2 years).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No, those aren't the two options.

 

Well, we could fold the team or something, but I was trying to stay realistic.

[Exile on Waveland]

So year, its not overly likely the Cubs can turn it around next year without major FA acquisitions, but its not at all unheard of.

 

Certainly, I don't believe the Cubs will contend next year without a (external) talent infusion. However, if the Cubs were able to sign, say, Prince Fielder and C.J. Wilson, I'd be rather shocked if they did not contend in the NL Central next year. The Cubs have money coming off the books and money to spend. Obviously without mortgaging the future, the Cubs should be targetting contention in 2012. I see no reason not to.

[CyHawk_Cub]

So year, its not overly likely the Cubs can turn it around next year without major FA acquisitions, but its not at all unheard of.

 

Certainly, I don't believe the Cubs will contend next year without a (external) talent infusion. However, if the Cubs were able to sign, say, Prince Fielder and C.J. Wilson, I'd be rather shocked if they did not contend in the NL Central next year. The Cubs have money coming off the books and money to spend. Obviously without mortgaging the future, the Cubs should be targetting contention in 2012. I see no reason not to.

 

^^This. If Pujols/Fielder are not signed, ARam is kept, a pitcher like Wilson is inked & someone like Pena is re-signed, I still think 2012 contention for the division is possible (not "likely", but possible). Under that scenario, go guns blazing after Kemp for 2013, amongst the various necessary moves, as posters like N&G have advocated. Heck, even if Fielder is signed, still go after Kemp assuming payroll isn't cut.