Yooooooooooooennis Cespedes: To Oakland pg 44

[A New Era]

The Cubs bid for Darvish but weren’t seen as being as aggressive as the Rangers and the Blue Jays, who most think were the runners-up. Their global focus shifts to the Dominican Republic, where Cuban center fielders Yoenis Cespedes and Jorge Soler are about to be declared free agents. Cespedes, unlike Pujols and Fielder, seems to be in Theo Epstein’s wheelhouse. He’s listed at 25, and while you can question that age, you can’t question his build. He’s a Bo Jackson/Herschel Walker combo who has the potential to become an Eric Davis-style speed/power player. He would fit the Cubs’ timetable, having the next year or two to become acclimated to North American baseball and then being in his prime in 2014 and beyond, when the Cubs expect to factor into the NL Central race. Bidding for Cespedes is expected to go beyond $50 million. Soler, 19, isn’t big-league ready but he might have as higher – or even higher – of a ceiling than Cespedes. Baseball America’s Jim Callis compares him to Bubba Starling as a prospect. Texas signed Cuban center fielder Leonys Martin to a four-year, $15-million deal last summer, and Soler is expected to get a bigger deal.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-yankees-cespedes-hamilton-20111220,0,5791888.story

 

So we now know that Theo's plan is to suck for 2 more years and then be a factor in the NL Central race. I suppose we can look forward to a WS Championship by 2025.

 

2012 + 2 = 2025? Forgive me, my math sucks.

 

There's a big difference in Roger's quote (being a factor in the weak NL Central in 2 years - not necessarily winning it) and what I posted (winning a WS Championship). If we went through all of this hype and expense to get Theo so we could become "a factor in the NL Central", then we could have hired someone else or even kept Hendry.

 

Hendry wouldn't have traded Marshall while his value was high for a net gain in assets. Hendry would have extended Ramirez for 3 years 36 mil as opposed to rolling the dice on a buy low move that could pay big dividends. I think I prefer the way the new guys are doing it. Buying low on a lot of peices and building up their assets through trades.

[Backtobanks]

One of my problems is that Theo seems to be following Hendry in adding veteran "filler" in spots where prospects could easily do the same job (i.e. Johnson, Corpas, etc.). If we're going to suck next year, let's see what the kids can do.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

One of my problems is that Theo seems to be following Hendry in adding veteran "filler" in spots where prospects could easily do the same job (i.e. Johnson, Corpas, etc.). If we're going to suck next year, let's see what the kids can do.

 

If we're going to suck next year, don't start the service time clock on guys who can still benefit from time in the minors.

[KingCubsFan]

One of my problems is that Theo seems to be following Hendry in adding veteran "filler" in spots where prospects could easily do the same job (i.e. Johnson, Corpas, etc.). If we're going to suck next year, let's see what the kids can do.

 

If we're going to suck next year, don't start the service time clock on guys who can still benefit from time in the minors.

Exactly. And in the meantime, maybe you're able to flip a guy for some value at the deadline. Get a great package for Garza, get value for Marmol, sign Soler and it's been a pretty good offseason.

[Brian]

One of my problems is that Theo seems to be following Hendry in adding veteran "filler" in spots where prospects could easily do the same job (i.e. Johnson, Corpas, etc.). If we're going to suck next year, let's see what the kids can do.

 

If we're going to suck next year, don't start the service time clock on guys who can still benefit from time in the minors.

 

Exactly. Why break camp with Brett Jackson when we can get another year of service time out of him? Oh no we need another bullpen arm, let's see McNutt had a good spring let's break camp with him in the bullpen.

 

Johnson and Corpas are both under 2 million, if there is someone in the minor leagues that makes sense those guys will be axed. This team is reported ready to eat millions of dollars over the next 3 years on Soriano, cutting these guys in June to make way for young guys won't be a problem.

[rrudd2]

If we're going to suck next year, don't start the service time clock on guys who can still benefit from time in the minors.

[WrigleyField 22]

I suppose even that half year in the minors is worth it so they don't become super 2's once arbitration hits. Still dont like the Johnson sigining. Isn't there another junk 5th OF we can sign for about half the price and pretend he's a 4th OF?

[A New Era]

I suppose even that half year in the minors is worth it so they don't become super 2's once arbitration hits. Still dont like the Johnson sigining. Isn't there another junk 5th OF we can sign for about half the price and pretend he's a 4th OF?

 

Johnson's signing is so miniscule and inconsequential in the grand scheme of the upcoming rebuild.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I suppose even that half year in the minors is worth it so they don't become super 2's once arbitration hits. Still dont like the Johnson sigining. Isn't there another junk 5th OF we can sign for about half the price and pretend he's a 4th OF?

 

Johnson's signing is so miniscule and inconsequential in the grand scheme of the upcoming rebuild.

 

It's the attitude behind it. This FO has been billed as the guys who work harder than anyone else to find every little edge they can.

 

It's hard to square that with shrugging their shoulders, giving up on 2012 and just signing the 4th OFer who has been hanging around the longest, even though there were almost certainly better options for the spot at the same price.

[Little Slide Rooter]

One of my problems is that Theo seems to be following Hendry in adding veteran "filler" in spots where prospects could easily do the same job (i.e. Johnson, Corpas, etc.). If we're going to suck next year, let's see what the kids can do.

 

If we're going to suck next year, don't start the service time clock on guys who can still benefit from time in the minors.

 

I agree to some extent, but with Brett Jackson, for example I'd like to see him in 2012. We have 3 other center fielders behind him. He's 23 and I think Szczurs going to be 22. Put Brett in now and in 2 years or so Szczur and Ha seem ready then we have a trade chip on our hands to fill a hole or 2 on what will hopefully be shaping up to be a team ready to contend. On a more selfish level, even if we're destined to punt 2012 as 2013 we at least want a somewhat watchable product and while I'd e willing to watch young players like Castro, Jackson and maybe Stewart and Vitters grow, if the roster is populated by junk, I have no interest in watching the Cubs of the 90's all over again especially with no Sammy knocking every other ball into orbit.

[Conky]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

 

Taking 2 years to rebuild a large market team to be "ready" to compete in the NL Central isn't what I envisioned when we hired the boy genius. As many have posted, there's no reason the Cubs can't rebuild while fielding a decent team in 2012 and "a factor in the NL Central" in 2013.

 

Not getting the hate this early for the new front office. Regardless of what "many have posted", I'll put my trust in the people in place that are actually making the decisions and spending their pwn money. No reason to lash out just because your own ideas or those of others here are not being adopted by the brand new brain-trust. I'm sure it's nothing personal. They are doing the jobs they were hired to do.

 

At this early stage, saying the team will not be "decent" in 2012 is nothing more than a speculative rant.

[pccubfan]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

 

Taking 2 years to rebuild a large market team to be "ready" to compete in the NL Central isn't what I envisioned when we hired the boy genius. As many have posted, there's no reason the Cubs can't rebuild while fielding a decent team in 2012 and "a factor in the NL Central" in 2013.

 

Not getting the hate this early for the new front office. Regardless of what "many have posted", I'll put my trust in the people in place that are actually making the decisions and spending their pwn money. No reason to lash out just because your own ideas or those of others here are not being adopted by the brand new brain-trust. I'm sure it's nothing personal. They are doing the jobs they were hired to do.

 

At this early stage, saying the team will not be "decent" in 2012 is nothing more than a speculative rant.

 

Maybe this message board should be shut down until opening day. As long as people are willing to keep an open mind and re-assess as transactions are completed I don't see any harm in discussing the Cubs' prospects based upon the team's composition at that time.

[davearm2]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

:good:

 

Eyes on the prize people. If promoting the long-term dominance we all want means trading guys like Marshall and taking a step back in 2012, so be it. Scraping together 84 wins and hoping it's enough in a weak division is not what Theo and co. were brought here to do.

[Conky]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

 

Taking 2 years to rebuild a large market team to be "ready" to compete in the NL Central isn't what I envisioned when we hired the boy genius. As many have posted, there's no reason the Cubs can't rebuild while fielding a decent team in 2012 and "a factor in the NL Central" in 2013.

 

Not getting the hate this early for the new front office. Regardless of what "many have posted", I'll put my trust in the people in place that are actually making the decisions and spending their pwn money. No reason to lash out just because your own ideas or those of others here are not being adopted by the brand new brain-trust. I'm sure it's nothing personal. They are doing the jobs they were hired to do.

 

At this early stage, saying the team will not be "decent" in 2012 is nothing more than a speculative rant.

 

Maybe this message board should be shut down until opening day. As long as people are willing to keep an open mind and re-assess as transactions are completed I don't see any harm in discussing the Cubs' prospects based upon the team's composition at that time.

 

Discussion is what boards like this are all about. My opinion over the knee-jerk reactions and premature hyperbole we are seeing from some posters here is a part of that discussion. Seeing the name calling and frustration over early moves is a bit comical, though. Theo is already being sarcastically called "the boy wonder", and the front office compared to that of Hendry. That's great stuff. Tim has to be loving these guys for the added hits they generate. lol

 

Discuss away on irrational perceptions all you want. Just don't be surprised if others don't agree.

[dew1679666265]

Hendry wouldn't have traded Marshall while his value was high for a net gain in assets.

 

Like he didn't do when he didn't trade DeRosa for Archer/Gaub/Stevens, right?

[Sammy Sofa]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

:good:

 

Eyes on the prize people. If promoting the long-term dominance we all want means trading guys like Marshall and taking a step back in 2012, so be it. Scraping together 84 wins and hoping it's enough in a weak division is not what Theo and co. were brought here to do.

 

They can and should do both.

[Guest]

Hendry wouldn't have traded Marshall while his value was high for a net gain in assets.

 

Like he didn't do when he didn't trade DeRosa for Archer/Gaub/Stevens, right?

 

 

I could be being unfair to him, but I feel like that move was more of a salary dump than selling high because selling high is smart.

 

 

Wasn't there talk of the purse strings being really tight after 08 and that move was made to help accommodate the signing of gameboard? Or am I remembering wrong?

[Guest]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

:good:

 

Eyes on the prize people. If promoting the long-term dominance we all want means trading guys like Marshall and taking a step back in 2012, so be it. Scraping together 84 wins and hoping it's enough in a weak division is not what Theo and co. were brought here to do.

 

They can and should do both.

 

But if you can trade guys for more valuable assets that will hurt in the short term, I think want them to do that.

[Sammy Sofa]

They can do both. They have very, very few guys that they "need" to trade now before the 2012 to maximize their value; Marshall is pretty much the only one since he's signed for just the one year. Byrd's arguably the other. The rest have enough time that the FO can play the field and construct a competitive team for 2012. If the team falters and it looks to be a better move to trade, hey, great, you've got the trade deadline, or before next season. A fire sale is just an act of desperation that small market teams find themselves having to do when backed into the corner. The Cubs don't have to do that. Yes, if they're being bowled over with great offers, sure, pounce on it...but that's likely not the case. Moving most of these guys is going to take work and time to maximize the return, so the idea of intentionally tanking the season just seems even more ridiculous (trading Marshall and Byrd is not tanking the season).

[Conky]

Hendry wouldn't have traded Marshall while his value was high for a net gain in assets.

 

Like he didn't do when he didn't trade DeRosa for Archer/Gaub/Stevens, right?

 

 

I could be being unfair to him, but I feel like that move was more of a salary dump than selling high because selling high is smart.

 

 

Wasn't there talk of the purse strings being really tight after 08 and that move was made to help accommodate the signing of gameboard? Or am I remembering wrong?

 

 

I seem to remember it as trying to clear room for a run at Peavy, but might have been Bradley.

[Guest]

They can do both. They have very, very few guys that they "need" to trade now before the 2012 to maximize their value; Marshall is pretty much the only one since he's signed for just the one year. Byrd's arguably the other. The rest have enough time that the FO can play the field and construct a competitive team for 2012. If the team falters and it looks to be a better move to trade, hey, great, you've got the trade deadline, or before next season. A fire sale is just an act of desperation that small market teams find themselves having to do when backed into the corner. The Cubs don't have to do that. Yes, if they're being bowled over with great offers, sure, pounce on it...but that's likely not the case. Moving most of these guys is going to take work and time to maximize the return, so the idea of intentionally tanking the season just seems even more ridiculous (trading Marshall and Byrd is not tanking the season).

 

For devil's advocate's sake, Garza's value might not get any higher than right now, especially given the fact that he just came off his best year.

 

But I generally agree with the point you're making.

[davearm2]

Being a consistent force in your division and making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal. Having the best chance of winning it all depends on consistently getting to the post-season and having things go your way. Taking 2 years to put together a well-built franchise, ready to compete would seem to be exactly what the front office was brought in to do. Adding on another random 13 years before you see "winning a championship" is just hyperbole and rabble mongering.

:good:

 

Eyes on the prize people. If promoting the long-term dominance we all want means trading guys like Marshall and taking a step back in 2012, so be it. Scraping together 84 wins and hoping it's enough in a weak division is not what Theo and co. were brought here to do.

 

They can and should do both.

If there's a win-win deal out there, I'm sure they'll jump all over it.

[Sammy Sofa]

They can do both. They have very, very few guys that they "need" to trade now before the 2012 to maximize their value; Marshall is pretty much the only one since he's signed for just the one year. Byrd's arguably the other. The rest have enough time that the FO can play the field and construct a competitive team for 2012. If the team falters and it looks to be a better move to trade, hey, great, you've got the trade deadline, or before next season. A fire sale is just an act of desperation that small market teams find themselves having to do when backed into the corner. The Cubs don't have to do that. Yes, if they're being bowled over with great offers, sure, pounce on it...but that's likely not the case. Moving most of these guys is going to take work and time to maximize the return, so the idea of intentionally tanking the season just seems even more ridiculous (trading Marshall and Byrd is not tanking the season).

 

For devil's advocate's sake, Garza's value might not get any higher than right now, especially given the fact that he just came off his best year.

 

But I generally agree with the point you're making.

 

I'm not opposed to moving Garza whenever the right deal is there. That said, I'm also pretty confident that last year wasn't a fluke and that he'll still be a highly coveted asset come the deadline.

[davearm2]

They can do both. They have very, very few guys that they "need" to trade now before the 2012 to maximize their value; Marshall is pretty much the only one since he's signed for just the one year. Byrd's arguably the other. The rest have enough time that the FO can play the field and construct a competitive team for 2012. If the team falters and it looks to be a better move to trade, hey, great, you've got the trade deadline, or before next season. A fire sale is just an act of desperation that small market teams find themselves having to do when backed into the corner. The Cubs don't have to do that. Yes, if they're being bowled over with great offers, sure, pounce on it...but that's likely not the case. Moving most of these guys is going to take work and time to maximize the return, so the idea of intentionally tanking the season just seems even more ridiculous (trading Marshall and Byrd is not tanking the season).

What's even more ridiculous is the notion that they're intentionally tanking the season.

[Sammy Sofa]

Willfully fielding a team that's a stretch to crack 75 wins is effectively tanking the season. I'm still optimistic we're going to see some big, smart moves that allay such fears.