Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[TruffleShuffle]

The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year.

 

so you think the cubs are going to be run as a small market team and never sign big ticket free agents any more? or just that you will be reading the same things on nsbb every offseason?

[pccubfan]

According to Kaplan and an "impeccable source" Theo won't budge off the asking price for Garza. I'm thinking we're keeping him at this point. The Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox, and Blue Jays have all said on some level that they're out. Could be posturing obviously, but the more I think about it, the more I really think we NEED to trade him now. It's certainly not looking like we'll be competitive in 2012. 2013? By Theo's comments about not spending big until we're contending or ready to anyway, 2013 seems unlikely to me. That leaves us with 2014 and 2015, if we gave him a 4 year deal. Those would be his 30 and 31 year old seasons and we're right back to where we are currently with him. 2 years from FA. And we've paid him to pitch for us over the 2 noncontending seasons around 20 mill. Go ahead and deal him now, Theo. I'm fairly sure you can get back the same value or more than what we gave up for him. Forget the winning each year is sacred nonsense, because it's not happening in 2012 and you know it, moreso than we do.

 

I think we might get more for him at the deadline, when teams are good and desperate. If the Yankees are in a dogfight with the Sox in July, they might be more willing to surrender a package with Montero and one of the Bs.

 

If you can't get what you want for him now, start extension talks and if they don't go smoothly, deal him in July.

 

I can't see the Yankees dealing Montero at the deadline. By then he will be firmly encamped in their every day lineup. A team in contention is going to give up prospects not someone that is currently producing.

[biittner77]

The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year.

 

so you think the cubs are going to be run as a small market team and never sign big ticket free agents any more? or just that you will be reading the same things on nsbb every offseason?

 

I read that as him saying that doubters will always be able to find fault with high end FAs. They shouldn't be afraid to sign Fielder precisely because they're not a small market team.

 

Or maybe that's just what I think. I personally see very little risk in signing Fielder. He's not blocking anybody, plays a position that should allow him to remain healthy and fills a position of obvious need. Worst case scenario he's a good player on a bad team. If the Cubs still aren't good in 3 years I doubt they'd have much trouble moving Fielder to an AL team if nothing else.

[CincyCubsFan]

The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year.

 

so you think the cubs are going to be run as a small market team and never sign big ticket free agents any more? or just that you will be reading the same things on nsbb every offseason?

 

The latter.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

He'll turn 31 during his first season after whatever deal he signs. We're really splitting hairs if we're thinking that turning 31 in, say, February instead of September really makes that much of a difference giving the hemming and hawing certain segments have been repeating ad nauseum about signing the right big players at "the right ages."

 

Right. Signing Fielder right now would be a more prudent move than waiting for Votto (who may or may not even make it to FA). Banking on potential free agents not to be extended by their team or traded and extended while passing on current FAs is a flawed and dangerous strategy.

 

 

The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year.

 

That's my point; I'm surprised/amused at how often Votto is brought up here as a FA target when he'd be turning 31 that first season after he's signed and you'd have so many arguments against signing Fielder due to fatness and Pujols because he's 32 and how they don't fit into the plan of "the new Cubs." OK, how does a 31-year-old signing a huge contract fit into "the new Cubs" for those people?

[CincyCubsFan]

 

He'll turn 31 during his first season after whatever deal he signs. We're really splitting hairs if we're thinking that turning 31 in, say, February instead of September really makes that much of a difference giving the hemming and hawing certain segments have been repeating ad nauseum about signing the right big players at "the right ages."

 

Right. Signing Fielder right now would be a more prudent move than waiting for Votto (who may or may not even make it to FA). Banking on potential free agents not to be extended by their team or traded and extended while passing on current FAs is a flawed and dangerous strategy.

 

 

The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year.

 

That's my point; I'm surprised/amused at how often Votto is brought up here as a FA target when he'd be turning 31 that first season after he's signed and you'd have so many arguments against signing Fielder due to fatness and Pujols because he's 32 and how they don't fit into the plan of "the new Cubs." OK, how does a 31-year-old signing a huge contract fit into "the new Cubs" for those people?

 

I completely agree with you. It's been mentioned a few times, I don't think a lot of people who keeping dropping Votto's name realize how old he's going to be when he hits free agency. Once that offseason rolls around and we start hashing out the pros and cons, we're going to start hearing the same reasons not to sign Votto that we did with Fielder and Pujols.

If we're not willing to compromise once in a while to get established talent, what is the strategy? Try to field a completely home-grown, competitive, minimum salary team? Keep our fingers crossed that a roster full of 25 year old, stud superstar players magically hit the free market and we aren't outbid on them? The offensive FA class next year isn't looking so hot. Are we punting 2013 too?

[davearm2]

 

He'll turn 31 during his first season after whatever deal he signs. We're really splitting hairs if we're thinking that turning 31 in, say, February instead of September really makes that much of a difference giving the hemming and hawing certain segments have been repeating ad nauseum about signing the right big players at "the right ages."

 

Right. Signing Fielder right now would be a more prudent move than waiting for Votto (who may or may not even make it to FA). Banking on potential free agents not to be extended by their team or traded and extended while passing on current FAs is a flawed and dangerous strategy.

 

 

The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year.

 

That's my point; I'm surprised/amused at how often Votto is brought up here as a FA target when he'd be turning 31 that first season after he's signed and you'd have so many arguments against signing Fielder due to fatness and Pujols because he's 32 and how they don't fit into the plan of "the new Cubs." OK, how does a 31-year-old signing a huge contract fit into "the new Cubs" for those people?

I'm sure this is primarily directed at me.

 

The issue with Fielder specifically is that I just happen to think he's a higher-than-average risk for the reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum.

 

The issue with elite free agents in general is that you want to sign them when the team is positioned to contend immediately, so you aren't wasting the most valuable early year(s) of the contract on a non-contending team.

[Sammy Sofa]

You're hardly the only person that has argued against signing Fielder and Pujols here, so that was nicely egomaniacal.

[davearm2]

You're hardly the only person that has argued against signing Fielder and Pujols here, so that was nicely egomaniacal.

I'm the one you ride constantly, though, so I thought it was a fair conclusion.

[Sammy Sofa]

I've got many pots boiling here.

 

To be perfectly honest, dave, if it was just you making that argument then it wouldn't be worth singling out. I brought it up because there is actually a decent number of posters talking themselves out of the idea of signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30 because of a combination of a variation of Theo rhetoric and apparent residual trauma from the Soriano signing.

[Guest]

This is the closest I've seen to you two being friends/friendly.

 

It's heartwarming.

[davearm2]

I've got many pots boiling here.

 

To be perfectly honest, dave, if it was just you making that argument then it wouldn't be worth singling out. I brought it up because there is actually a decent number of posters talking themselves out of the idea of signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30 because of a combination of a variation of Theo rhetoric and apparent residual trauma from the Soriano signing.

Don't paint me with that broad brush. I'm not opposed to signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30. In fact as a generalization, I doubt anyone is. You just have to be smart about it.

 

Obviously where opinions vary is on what it means to be smart about it.

[Sammy Sofa]

You keep applying things I'm saying to yourself when I haven't directed them at you. And yes, there are numerous posters here who don't want to sign a big FA who is past 30, and yes, most of that seems to stem from their feelings on the Soriano deal.

[SouthSideRyan]

This is the closest I've seen to you two being friends/friendly.

 

It's heartwarming.

 

HUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUG

[CincyCubsFan]

I've got many pots boiling here.

 

To be perfectly honest, dave, if it was just you making that argument then it wouldn't be worth singling out. I brought it up because there is actually a decent number of posters talking themselves out of the idea of signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30 because of a combination of a variation of Theo rhetoric and apparent residual trauma from the Soriano signing.

 

Yea, my comments certainly weren't directed specifically at you Dave. If you or anyone else doesn't think Fielder is a wise signing, that's fine. But when we start painting all free agents with the same brush (We don't want anyone that's going to be over the age of 30 during the last few years of a contract, we don't want to overpay anyone at any cost, let's wait until someone younger and better comes along,) we end up backing ourselves into a corner really quick.

[Sammy Sofa]

I've got many pots boiling here.

 

To be perfectly honest, dave, if it was just you making that argument then it wouldn't be worth singling out. I brought it up because there is actually a decent number of posters talking themselves out of the idea of signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30 because of a combination of a variation of Theo rhetoric and apparent residual trauma from the Soriano signing.

 

Yea, my comments certainly weren't directed specifically at you Dave. If you or anyone else doesn't think Fielder is a wise signing, that's fine. But when we start painting all free agents with the same brush (We don't want anyone that's going to be over the age of 30 during the last few years of a contract, we don't want to overpay anyone at any cost, let's wait until someone younger and better comes along,) we end up backing ourselves into a corner really quick.

 

And yes, you can add "waiting until you can sign a FA that can immediately put the team over the top" and variations thereof to that list.

[toonsterwu]

Well, I'll be egomaniacal and chime in for a second. I was one who wasn't for Pujols and was lukewarm on Fielder (I did think the Cubs would sign him, though, so that's been a mild surprise). For the former, it had little to do with the Soriano deal. I was more concerned on the length (10 years) and expected cost of the deal, as I'm not convinced that Pujols will maintain worthwhile production for half of that contract, if that. There were some minor signs of decline - could just be an off year, but could be signs of trouble (relatively speaking, I'm not saying Pujols isn't going to be good) to come.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, if this team was knocking on the doorstep and there was a 30+ year old player that wanted that elite contract of length/years, then I might actually be okay with it. I'd voice my typical reservations, but part of the case was that this team was simply not that close to legitimately pushing for a World Series. If they don't address the first base situation long term, and if this team is knocking on the door when Votto is up (obviously, knocking on the door is a loose term and I haven't really pondered how I would define said term), I don't know if I'd be as against Votto as I was on a Pujols deal.

 

On Fielder - I wasn't as against Fielder. Age and production made me think that it would've been okay to take the risk, provided it wasn't insane numbers. My concerns rested more with what type of production Fielder would provide when the team is ready to make a move. And yes, part of that is his size, but part of that is also that he's only had 2 years of elite production. I still would be okay with a Fielder signing, though, and even a 7 year deal. I guess I'd live with 8. Still think something creative could be done to get both sides to agree to something (frontloading and giving Prince an opt out early is something that I wonder if Boras might be interested in, or maybe some sort of team option on the back years tied to previous years production to give the Cubs some level of protection). All that said, not expecting it.

 

And in general, I agree with Art Vandelay. You can't paint broad strokes on every FA. My perspective on those two deal as much with where this club is right now, and where it will be in the near future. I'm fairly bullish on the system, but even then, realistically, the chips aren't in place for a couple of years, and our "window" is probably opening around 2014 (I mean, the chances of us snapping up enough key, in their prime FA's are slim to build for earlier). Again, that said, I was fine with a Fielder move provided it wasn't silly season.

 

Edit: I just wanted to type egomaniacal (I'd like to get Boyer Mallo Cup into a post one of these days ... took me the damn longest time to figure out what Mallo meant ... or at least what I think it means). I'm pretty sure I know how to spell, so it was irritating to see the red line pop up for egomaniacal. I guess they want me to put the hyphen in there, and considering my background, I probably should, but it's annoying.

[pccubfan]

Well, I'll be egomaniacal and chime in for a second. I was one who wasn't for Pujols and was lukewarm on Fielder (I did think the Cubs would sign him, though, so that's been a mild surprise). For the former, it had little to do with the Soriano deal. I was more concerned on the length (10 years) and expected cost of the deal, as I'm not convinced that Pujols will maintain worthwhile production for half of that contract, if that. There were some minor signs of decline - could just be an off year, but could be signs of trouble (relatively speaking, I'm not saying Pujols isn't going to be good) to come.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, if this team was knocking on the doorstep and there was a 30+ year old player that wanted that elite contract of length/years, then I might actually be okay with it. I'd voice my typical reservations, but part of the case was that this team was simply not that close to legitimately pushing for a World Series. If they don't address the first base situation long term, and if this team is knocking on the door when Votto is up (obviously, knocking on the door is a loose term and I haven't really pondered how I would define said term), I don't know if I'd be as against Votto as I was on a Pujols deal.

 

On Fielder - I wasn't as against Fielder. Age and production made me think that it would've been okay to take the risk, provided it wasn't insane numbers. My concerns rested more with what type of production Fielder would provide when the team is ready to make a move. And yes, part of that is his size, but part of that is also that he's only had 2 years of elite production. I still would be okay with a Fielder signing, though, and even a 7 year deal. I guess I'd live with 8. Still think something creative could be done to get both sides to agree to something (frontloading and giving Prince an opt out early is something that I wonder if Boras might be interested in, or maybe some sort of team option on the back years tied to previous years production to give the Cubs some level of protection). All that said, not expecting it.

 

And in general, I agree with Art Vandelay. You can't paint broad strokes on every FA. My perspective on those two deal as much with where this club is right now, and where it will be in the near future. I'm fairly bullish on the system, but even then, realistically, the chips aren't in place for a couple of years, and our "window" is probably opening around 2014 (I mean, the chances of us snapping up enough key, in their prime FA's are slim to build for earlier). Again, that said, I was fine with a Fielder move provided it wasn't silly season.

 

Edit: I just wanted to type egomaniacal (I'd like to get Boyer Mallo Cup into a post one of these days ... took me the damn longest time to figure out what Mallo meant ... or at least what I think it means). I'm pretty sure I know how to spell, so it was irritating to see the red line pop up for egomaniacal. I guess they want me to put the hyphen in there, and considering my background, I probably should, but it's annoying.

 

But if you add a Fielder, Cespedes and trade Garza for a package of elite prospects this year, then add a top of the rotation guy and a mid-rotation guy in FA next offseason, this team could definitely compete in 2013 and still be ready to dominate in 2014 and beyond.

[KingCubsFan]

Well, I'll be egomaniacal and chime in for a second. I was one who wasn't for Pujols and was lukewarm on Fielder (I did think the Cubs would sign him, though, so that's been a mild surprise). For the former, it had little to do with the Soriano deal. I was more concerned on the length (10 years) and expected cost of the deal, as I'm not convinced that Pujols will maintain worthwhile production for half of that contract, if that. There were some minor signs of decline - could just be an off year, but could be signs of trouble (relatively speaking, I'm not saying Pujols isn't going to be good) to come.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, if this team was knocking on the doorstep and there was a 30+ year old player that wanted that elite contract of length/years, then I might actually be okay with it. I'd voice my typical reservations, but part of the case was that this team was simply not that close to legitimately pushing for a World Series. If they don't address the first base situation long term, and if this team is knocking on the door when Votto is up (obviously, knocking on the door is a loose term and I haven't really pondered how I would define said term), I don't know if I'd be as against Votto as I was on a Pujols deal.

 

On Fielder - I wasn't as against Fielder. Age and production made me think that it would've been okay to take the risk, provided it wasn't insane numbers. My concerns rested more with what type of production Fielder would provide when the team is ready to make a move. And yes, part of that is his size, but part of that is also that he's only had 2 years of elite production. I still would be okay with a Fielder signing, though, and even a 7 year deal. I guess I'd live with 8. Still think something creative could be done to get both sides to agree to something (frontloading and giving Prince an opt out early is something that I wonder if Boras might be interested in, or maybe some sort of team option on the back years tied to previous years production to give the Cubs some level of protection). All that said, not expecting it.

 

And in general, I agree with Art Vandelay. You can't paint broad strokes on every FA. My perspective on those two deal as much with where this club is right now, and where it will be in the near future. I'm fairly bullish on the system, but even then, realistically, the chips aren't in place for a couple of years, and our "window" is probably opening around 2014 (I mean, the chances of us snapping up enough key, in their prime FA's are slim to build for earlier). Again, that said, I was fine with a Fielder move provided it wasn't silly season.

 

Edit: I just wanted to type egomaniacal (I'd like to get Boyer Mallo Cup into a post one of these days ... took me the damn longest time to figure out what Mallo meant ... or at least what I think it means). I'm pretty sure I know how to spell, so it was irritating to see the red line pop up for egomaniacal. I guess they want me to put the hyphen in there, and considering my background, I probably should, but it's annoying.

 

But if you add a Fielder, Cespedes and trade Garza for a package of elite prospects this year, then add a top of the rotation guy and a mid-rotation guy in FA next offseason, this team could definitely compete in 2013 and still be ready to dominate in 2014 and beyond.

The problem with that is the only way you'll get Fielder in a scenario like that is by (a) lying to him and telling him we'll be competitive next year, (b) overpaying for him by a ton, or © somehow convincing him that it's worth it to wait a year or so because we'll sign a few more free agents and be good. In the real world, probably the only way you're getting Fielder is by doing your best to put a contender on the field this year, and that would have necessitated overpaying for other free agents.

[SouthSideRyan]

In the real world, probably the only way you're getting Fielder is by doing your best to put a contender on the field this year, and that would have necessitated overpaying for other free agents.

 

Or by offering him the best contract. You think Prince has eliminated Seattle and the Cubs from consideration because they're going to be bad next year?

[KingCubsFan]

In the real world, probably the only way you're getting Fielder is by doing your best to put a contender on the field this year, and that would have necessitated overpaying for other free agents.

 

Or by offering him the best contract. You think Prince has eliminated Seattle and the Cubs from consideration because they're going to be bad next year?

No, but he probably would prefer to play for a winner. That's why I said one of ways to get him would be to overpay.

[SouthSideRyan]

The competition for Fielder features nothing but teams unlikely to make the playoffs in 2012.

[jersey cubs fan]

In the real world, probably the only way you're getting Fielder is by doing your best to put a contender on the field this year, and that would have necessitated overpaying for other free agents.

 

Or by offering him the best contract. You think Prince has eliminated Seattle and the Cubs from consideration because they're going to be bad next year?

No, but he probably would prefer to play for a winner. That's why I said one of ways to get him would be to overpay.

 

You don't have to convince him to come to baseball Siberia. It's Chicago, and the Cubs. It's Wrigley Field. He has a chance to play here for several years, win during that timeframe and maintain his value for a second free agent contract in his 30's.

[bukie]

The competition for Fielder features nothing but teams unlikely to make the playoffs in 2012.

Aren't the Rangers among the competition? Or is everyone assuming they're out because of the Darvish bid?

[toonsterwu]

snip

 

But if you add a Fielder, Cespedes and trade Garza for a package of elite prospects this year, then add a top of the rotation guy and a mid-rotation guy in FA next offseason, this team could definitely compete in 2013 and still be ready to dominate in 2014 and beyond.

 

As a side note first, if you add Fielder/Cespedes (and I'm really not for a Cespedes signing), I would think that you would keep Garza and try to find another big bat in the winter of 2012 to compete in 2013.

 

Without knowing what the rest of this hypothetical situation involves, I'd note that

 

- Adding a top and mid-rotation arm in one off-season is easier said than done with the rising number of teams with money to spend and the general demand for pitching throughout. It's possibly doable next off-season, but tough.

 

- the lineup is a Fielder/Cespedes away. I'm still concerned about finding a better top of the order guy, and another big bat is needed.

 

- this somewhat presumes that Cespedes is going to be ... good.

 

Are there ways to open the window earlier? Sure, but it'd take a massive dump truck of money to make it happen, and it assumes that we'd be able to outbid everyone else without going into silly numbers, which is a debatable notion.