2012 - Throw away/Go for it?

[Post Count Padder]

If just a few things break the right away, it's not that farfetched that we contend next season. Fewer injuries, some smarter free agent signings, add some more depth and I think we could make a run at the division next year. Granted, 2013 does seem more likely, but I don't see us finishing 20 games under .500 again.

[toonsterwu]

I don't disagree with your overall premise. I'd just rather hold off for another year and another crop of pitchers (or potentially trade for someone really good getting really expensive for his current team) than to overpay CJ Wilson because he's the best guy available this year (barring CC).

 

In 2 years as a starter, Wilson has averaged a 5.25 WAR per season.

 

Cain: 3.4 avg WAR/28 years old in 2013/1 5+ WAR season

Danks: 3.2 avg WAR/28 years old in 2013/0 5+ WAR seasons

Greinke: 3.8 avg WAR/28 years old in 2013/2 5+ WAR seasons

Hamels: 3.8 avg WAR/29 years old in 2013/0 5+ WAR seasons (though 1 4.9 WAR season)

Dan Haren is set to be a FA if his option isn't picked up as well.

 

With this post I'm not necessarily arguing Wilson is better than all of them. But he's right up there with every one of those pitchers and we don't know which of these pitchers, if any, will actually hit FA next year. I'd assume Greinke will not be in Milwaukee after next year, but what if he's dealt to the Yankees (for example) at the deadline next year and they re-up him? I could easily see the Phillies re-upping Hamels, the DBacks picking up Haren's option, the Sox bringing back or trading Danks, and the Giants hanging onto Cain. You don't pass on a sure thing like Wilson in the off chance that similar players come available next year and that there are enough of them to drive the price down considerably.

 

Whatever star players we sign, we're going to overpay. Might as well overpay for a sure thing, elite player with much less mileage than any of those guys have.

 

as a side note, Anibal Sanchez is likely to be a FA after 2012, and considering he's on the Marlins, he might be the most realistic possibility to get to FA. He had past injury concerns but has strung together back to back 195+ inning seasons at an average of 4 WAR. If he does that next year again (high IP and solid WAR), I'll be fine taking a risk on a 4 year deal for a 29 year old pitcher in 2013.

[dew1679666265]

as a side note, Anibal Sanchez is likely to be a FA after 2012, and considering he's on the Marlins, he might be the most realistic possibility to get to FA. He had past injury concerns but has strung together back to back 195+ inning seasons at an average of 4 WAR. If he does that next year again (high IP and solid WAR), I'll be fine taking a risk on a 4 year deal for a 29 year old pitcher in 2013.

 

Didn't even look at him because I didn't know he had been quite that good recently. I wouldn't oppose going after Sanchez or any of the players I listed, I just don't agree with passing on Wilson this offseason for possible options next year that are marginally or no better than Wilson.

[toonsterwu]

I'm not always sure what they mean when people say 2012 isn't realistic or whatever.

 

I don't think it's realistic that the 2012 Cubs go into April with the best team on paper in the division, unless that idle speculation about a $200 million total baseball budget are true.

 

I think it's very realistic that the 2012 Cubs go into April as a .500 team on paper. From there, there's some sort of chance that several players have better seasons than expected (say, 5 guys at +0.8 WAR each), they get some positive pythagorean variance and then they get some deadline help. That puts you in the 90-win range, and as the Cardinals keep proving, being the worst team in the playoffs doesn't hurt your chances that much.

 

Sure, it could just as easily go the other way, but what's the point of fielding a baseball team if you aren't going to try.

 

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term?

 

There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example.

 

Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title.

[Backtobanks]

I don't think the division is going to be *that* bad. The Brewers minus Fielder still look like a capable team to me. The arbitration raises are going to eat them alive for the next few years, but I think they can give it one more go.

 

When you lose your Fielder, a lot of teams can pitch around Braun making him a lot less effective.

[Guest]

I'm not always sure what they mean when people say 2012 isn't realistic or whatever.

 

I don't think it's realistic that the 2012 Cubs go into April with the best team on paper in the division, unless that idle speculation about a $200 million total baseball budget are true.

 

I think it's very realistic that the 2012 Cubs go into April as a .500 team on paper. From there, there's some sort of chance that several players have better seasons than expected (say, 5 guys at +0.8 WAR each), they get some positive pythagorean variance and then they get some deadline help. That puts you in the 90-win range, and as the Cardinals keep proving, being the worst team in the playoffs doesn't hurt your chances that much.

 

Sure, it could just as easily go the other way, but what's the point of fielding a baseball team if you aren't going to try.

 

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term?

 

There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example.

 

Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title.

Do we even have 5-7 spots to fill for next season?

[dew1679666265]

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term?

 

There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example.

 

Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title.

 

The way you avoid a financial bind the Cubs were just in is two fold:

 

1) Develop a strong farm system that consistently pumps out cheap, productive major leaguers. We didn't do that during Hendry's tenure, so we had to sign both major stars and role players to multi-million dollar deals. A team with the Cubs' budget can do one of the two but not both.

 

2) Don't sign non-star players to star contracts. We did this with Soriano and it hurt us significantly. The thing is, none of the FAs mentioned are anything like Soriano, other than they're very expensive. Pujols/Prince/Wilson are stars and it's ok to give star contracts to star players.

 

If you can do these two things, it's ok to give out a couple or three massive contracts when your payroll is $130-$150 million. Having Pujols and Wilson taking up $50 million of our annual budget when Z comes off the books next year, Soriano comes off in 2014, and we have lots of good prospects set to hit the majors over the next couple of years, and having Theo/Hoyer/McLeod to turn our system into a machine is perfectly fine. It certainly won't necessarily lead to a similar financial bind we found ourselves in under Hendry.

[davell]

Here's the starting pitching available this offseason: Bruce Chen, Erik Bedard, Mark Buehrle, Javier Vazquez, Yu Darvish, the guy coming over from Taiwan, Edwin Jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, Paul Maholm, CC Sabathia, CJ Wilson, and Roy Oswalt. If we're going to go for it, and not make any trades, then adding 2 of these guys is a necessity, along with one of Fielder or Pujols and some semblance of a solid 3B, Hopefully a platoon of Flaherty and LeMahieu to help keep cost down. For instance, adding Vazquez and Maholm to the rotation, Pujols, Kouzmanoff and a bench guy would probably keep our payroll around 130 or so. And to me, even that's a team that probably is a serious contender within the division. Payroll hike and we can do some serious damage, if you ask me.

[dew1679666265]

Do we even have 5-7 spots to fill for next season?

 

Assuming Brett Jackson begins the year in CF, we have this:

 

1B: open

2B: Barney/LeMaheieu

SS: Castro

3B: open

LF: Soriano

CF: BJax

RF: Byrd

C: Soto

SP: Garza, Z, Demp, Wells, open

RP: Marmol, Marshall, Shark, Russell, Wood, open, open

B: Baker, Campana, Colvin, open©

 

I count 6 open spots for next year, but three of those (2 pen, 1 bench or other way around if we go with 11 pitchers) should be filled from within. Without dumping Z, Soriano, or Byrd I'm seeing at most 3 spots to fill next year.

[dew1679666265]

Here's the starting pitching available this offseason: Bruce Chen, Erik Bedard, Mark Buehrle, Javier Vazquez, Yu Darvish, the guy coming over from Taiwan, Edwin Jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, Paul Maholm, CC Sabathia, CJ Wilson, and Roy Oswalt. If we're going to go for it, and not make any trades, then adding 2 of these guys is a necessity, along with one of Fielder or Pujols and some semblance of a solid 3B, Hopefully a platoon of Flaherty and LeMahieu to help keep cost down. For instance, adding Vazquez and Maholm to the rotation, Pujols, Kouzmanoff and a bench guy would probably keep our payroll around 130 or so. And to me, even that's a team that probably is a serious contender within the division. Payroll hike and we can do some serious damage, if you ask me.

 

We need 2 of those pitchers if we dump Z. With Theo in charge, that may not be a forgone conclusion.

[Guest]

Still makes me sick seeing Soriano and Byrd slotted into our corner OF spots.

 

WOOF

[davell]

True, but I'd bet one way or the other that we don't go into next season with both Z and Dempster on our team. Whether it's a trade of Z or Demp opting out, I just doubt we only need to fill one spot. I'm not even sure Theo is going to want to trust Wells with a spot, could be replacing him possibly instead of one of them.

[jersey cubs fan]

The cubs aren't in a financial bind and the only reason they are even close to one is because they signed a second rate player to a star contract. You avoid trouble down the line by giving star money to actual stars.

[davell]

If Theo wants to come in and clean house, he's got the ability to do it. My honest guess is he'll take a year to evaluate things, but if he wants to trade Z, my guess is you could get a team to pay close to half of his 18 mill. Byrd is easily tradeable, if Theo wants to find more power out of a corner spot, with Jackson taking over CF. Soriano is even dealable now. Granted, we'd be eating too much money here, but he's to the point in his deal that by next year, he's a possible DFA candidate. Everyone else on the roster is definitely tradeable, so it's not going to take much for Theo to give this team a makeover.

[pccubfan]

Not living near Chicago, I don't know the story on Buehrle. Is he not talked about because he hates the Cubs, because he played for the Sox, or are people just giving him to the Cards? He's getting up in years but he could be interesting on a three year deal.

[pccubfan]

Do we even have 5-7 spots to fill for next season?

 

Assuming Brett Jackson begins the year in CF, we have this:

 

1B: open

2B: Barney/LeMaheieu

SS: Castro

3B: open

LF: Soriano

CF: BJax

RF: Byrd

C: Soto

SP: Garza, Z, Demp, Wells, open

RP: Marmol, Marshall, Shark, Russell, Wood, open, open

B: Baker, Campana, Colvin, open©

 

I count 6 open spots for next year, but three of those (2 pen, 1 bench or other way around if we go with 11 pitchers) should be filled from within. Without dumping Z, Soriano, or Byrd I'm seeing at most 3 spots to fill next year.

 

Are you assuming DeWitt is waived?

[dew1679666265]

Are you assuming DeWitt is waived?

 

Nope, I simply forgot he existed. I knew I shouldn't go completely off memory or I'd forget somebody.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Still makes me sick seeing Soriano and Byrd slotted into our corner OF spots.

 

WOOF

 

I think that Byrd is our best trade bait. Hes productive and inexpensive and doesnt fit into our future plans. If we could get a quality piece or two, maybe even enough to make up for whatever we send to Boston, I'd be willing to put some carousel of Colvin, LaHair, Montanez, Baker, DeWitt, Flaherty, or whoever in RF for a year.

[dew1679666265]

Not living near Chicago, I don't know the story on Buehrle. Is he not talked about because he hates the Cubs, because he played for the Sox, or are people just giving him to the Cards? He's getting up in years but he could be interesting on a three year deal.

 

The lack of interest in Buerhle, at least on my part, is due to him being 33 when the season starts next year and likely declining rather than in his prime or improving. I'd go after Wilson, E Jackson, Maholm, and trade targets before I gave Buerhle a 3 year deal covering his ages 33,34,35 seasons.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Not living near Chicago, I don't know the story on Buehrle. Is he not talked about because he hates the Cubs, because he played for the Sox, or are people just giving him to the Cards? He's getting up in years but he could be interesting on a three year deal.

 

I think he's either a Cardinal or Marlin next year. Judging by the direction the White Sox are going, I can't see them re signing him. He really seems like the type of guy who'd hang em up if he didn't get an offee from a team he wants to go to. Of course, there's always the possibility that the Yankees make him an offer he can't refuse.

[mookie]

I don't understand the Maholm interest unless it is for the number 5 spot.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just think the question posed by the title of this thread is shortsighted; it's not an either/or option to be all in for 2012 or just "giving up" as a part of a rebuilding process. The Cubs can be, as most have pointed out, competitive next year without shooting for the moon and going with a "win now" approach. In this division being competitive next season can mean winning 85 games. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

[dew1679666265]

I think that Byrd is our best trade bait. Hes productive and inexpensive and doesnt fit into our future plans. If we could get a quality piece or two, maybe even enough to make up for whatever we send to Boston, I'd be willing to put some carousel of Colvin, LaHair, Montanez, Baker, DeWitt, Flaherty, or whoever in RF for a year.

 

I wouldn't. The prospect return on Byrd likely wouldn't be anything to get very excited about and we're not freeing up that much money by dealing him. I certainly wouldn't refuse any and all trade offers that came for him, but I'd hang onto him and either get moderate value in right (when considering offense and defense) or hope he has a good start to the season and deal him at the deadline if we're out of it.

[dew1679666265]

I don't understand the Maholm interest unless it is for the number 5 spot.

 

I don't have much interest unless he comes extremely cheaply, but I'd have more interest in him than a 33 year old Buerhle. In general, I have next to no interest in either.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Not living near Chicago, I don't know the story on Buehrle. Is he not talked about because he hates the Cubs, because he played for the Sox, or are people just giving him to the Cards? He's getting up in years but he could be interesting on a three year deal.

 

The lack of interest in Buerhle, at least on my part, is due to him being 33 when the season starts next year and likely declining rather than in his prime or improving. I'd go after Wilson, E Jackson, Maholm, and trade targets before I gave Buerhle a 3 year deal covering his ages 33,34,35 seasons.

 

Yes to Wilson, yes to Maholm assuming he's healthy but a big fat no to Jackson. Dont get me wrong, I think he's a very solid mid-rotation guy but I think that the weak FA SP class is going to drive his price higher than any team should pay for a mid rotatiom guy but smeone will anyway. I mentioed in another thread that Joe Saunders is another guy that will likely be available, probably for cheaper in trade than guys like Danks, Floyd, or any of the Rays guys.