Yooooooooooooennis Cespedes: To Oakland pg 44

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I want to see progress. We NEED to see progress. Wins and losses don't matter to me in 2012. We're not winning it all, so it shouldn't matter to anyone. We need to see solid development from our "core", which is Castro, Brett, and Rizzo for now. We need to see progress in the minors from a slew of guys that we talk about in the minors forum all the time. We need to add a couple more guys to the "core" group between now and next offseason. And we need to have an excellent draft and IFA signing period. If all these things can occur, next offseason and the following season will have a much different feel than 2012 does. And with the group we have making the decisions, I think it's not only possible, but likely.

 

 

Progress from the minors isnt hindered by signing free agents though. Its not like spending on a free agent hinders us from spending on amateur talent now that there is a cap in place. Also there was no reason we cant sign a young talented free agent like cepedes, fielder, or Darvish and see lots of progress from the minors. Then in two years be ready to compete for the next five. What I'm getting at is that I think we missed a shot to compete in two years by not signing a young superstar talent. and now we are looking at four to five years before we can compete at the earliest.

 

I don't know about four to five years. This offseason has been good. As far as talent given vs. talent taken in. I view more positively the futures of Rizzo vs Cashner, Torreyes vs. nothing, the crapshoot of Stewart vs. the crapshoot of Colvin. If the men in charge keep building up the assets as well as they have this offseason, then you'll have more pieces to make that trade for a guy becoming too expensive for a small market team. I think in 2 years maybe if a big free agent doesn't become available that fills our holes, don't be surprised if Theo and co go for a big trade with all the assets they've built up. They are in asset building mode right now. And we have a fairly decent core that is just about to hit MLB with castro, jackson, and Rizzo. It won't be painful to me in the slightest, because it's gonna be fun watching a new talented core of guys grow into their primes. I am fully confident Theo and Jed have a plan to build around what they view as the next great Cubs team.

 

Yup.

[Sammy Sofa]

Ugh, you're the worst. You're such a broken down CPU it's not even funny anymore.

 

What would you like to make up next?

I'm making up your stance that the Cubs should go hard after Dunn, Fielder, Pujols, Wilson etc etc?

 

That's rich. Way to stand behind your (millions of endlessly repeated) words. :lol:

 

Yeah, I supported signing any of those players (plus Darvish and the Cubans, though I guess that doesn't fit with your "past their prime" manifesto. Of course, neither do Wilson and Fielder. And wanting Dunn was from when Dunn didn't suck and the Cubs had a completely different FO and approach. But hey, why let common sense stop you this far along?) if the Cubs had the money to do so. You've moronically twisted that to try and make it sound like I only want the Cubs to sign "past their prime" veterans as the only solution to make the team better. That's almost as stupid as your laughable argument about the necessity of suck. Please, explain why the Cubs couldn't have traded for Rizzo or moved Marshall if they had, say, signed Fielder and Wilson. And if they had the money for those guys, why couldn't they still have signed DeJesus or Maholm on the cheap deals they got? Why wouldn't they have been able to trade Zambrano for Volstad? Why wouldn't they have been able to trade for Stewart? Explain for all of us which moves this offseason prove the necessity of effectively tanking 2012 (added bonus: explain why you think I didn't want any of these moves to happen)? Unless your argument is that the necessity is based out of an asusmption of a lack of available money then you've got yourself quite the hole to dig yourself out of.

 

No, dave, the only necessity of suck is the necessity of all of your posts to suck, and suck hard.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody is arguing against the notion that a rebuilding year will be painful. The argument is about whether the rebuilding year was necessary in the first place.

 

Absolutely ludicrous. You're stupidly conflating the desire to see the Cubs rebuild AND compete with the made-up idea that there's anyone here that thinks the Cubs didn't and don't have to rebuild. There's not a single person here that's going to argue against the general approach that Theo and co. seem to be taking with bolstering the team and farm system with cheap, young talent/reclamation projects, and to continue with that plan. The disappointment stems from seeing a huge major market club apparently not willing or, more worryingly, able to also take advantage of the financial resources they should have available to them. It was hoped that it's not, as you so desperately want everything to be, an either/or situation.

[davell]

For us to compete NEXT year, not 4 or 5 years from now, this is what we need to see: Brett, Rizzo, and Castro develop more in 2012. Signing Cespedes would certainly help matters. One of Volstad or Wood become a legit middle of the rotation type. One of Stewart, LaHair, or Cardenas become a legit everyday player. If we trade Garza, one of the guys we get for him also needs to become a legit starting pitcher as well. I'm not thinking I'm asking for the world here. These things are things I expect WILL happen. Continued development with some high upside guys in the minors will set us up to make trades FOR guys next offseason and a big name FA pitcher signing to go along with these things and we're right back into contention.

[questionmarkgrace]

For us to compete NEXT year, not 4 or 5 years from now, this is what we need to see: Brett, Rizzo, and Castro develop more in 2012. Signing Cespedes would certainly help matters. One of Volstad or Wood become a legit middle of the rotation type. One of Stewart, LaHair, or Cardenas become a legit everyday player. If we trade Garza, one of the guys we get for him also needs to become a legit starting pitcher as well. I'm not thinking I'm asking for the world here. These things are things I expect WILL happen. Continued development with some high upside guys in the minors will set us up to make trades FOR guys next offseason and a big name FA pitcher signing to go along with these things and we're right back into contention.

 

You are incredibly optimistic because that is alot to ask for. Its not like Rizzo or Jackson are a top 5 prospect in baseball, the kind of cant miss game changer that will set us up for years to come. They have the look of solid major leaguers but its hard to call them perenial all-stars or anything like that at this point. They could just as easily flame out at this point. The point is one hasnt seen a major league pitch and the other faultered big time when he did. And these guys are leading us to a world series in two years? I'm not saying they wont ever be the good players many envision but they arent getting much playing time this year and I would highly doubt both go crazy as rookies and lead us to playoffs next year.

 

As far as wood, volstad, stewart, lahair, cardenas, your asking for guys that have already failed to take advantage of their respective opportunities on previous teams to become legitimate starters. This doesnt happen that often. Sure its magnified when it does but how many diamond in the rough former prospects did theo find with the bosox? yeah they may be young enough to turn it around but again they have already failed so there is reason to be skeptical. Beyond that our best minor leaguers are four years away.

 

Again I dont see two years being possible what so ever. 4-5 seems more realistic to me.

[Rob]

Nobody likes the rebuilding process. But it's necessary.

 

I wouldn't go that far. There were ways to make this team a fringe contender in 2012 without handing out bad contracts.

Go on. Which free agent contracts did you wish the Cubs had handed out this offseason?

 

Of the biggies, CJ Wilson's deal is the easiest to defend, but that price almost certainly wasn't available to the Cubs.

 

Reyes?

Fielder?

Pujols?

 

How did you get from what I said to "Rob wants to sign 'biggies'?" I was talking about spreading the money around on marginal upgrades and making a handful of smart, low-cost trades.

 

Targeting Edwin Jackson and one of Kuroda / Oswalt would likely be better in the short term than Wood/Volstad/Wells. Trading for Alberto Callaspo would be better than Ian Stewart, and only cost marginally more.

 

This wasn't a 71 win team last season. There was enough room in the payroll to add players to take us to a mid 80's win team. That doesn't always put you in the playoffs, but it gives you a shot.

 

I get why the front office decided to target a future window instead of opting to make slower yearly gains. And I don't necessarily disagree. But let's not pretend it was the only option.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody likes the rebuilding process. But it's necessary.

 

I wouldn't go that far. There were ways to make this team a fringe contender in 2012 without handing out bad contracts.

Go on. Which free agent contracts did you wish the Cubs had handed out this offseason?

 

Of the biggies, CJ Wilson's deal is the easiest to defend, but that price almost certainly wasn't available to the Cubs.

 

Reyes?

Fielder?

Pujols?

 

How did you get from what I said to "Rob wants to sign 'biggies'?" I was talking about spreading the money around on marginal upgrades and making a handful of smart, low-cost trades.

 

Targeting Edwin Jackson and one of Kuroda / Oswalt would likely be better in the short term than Wood/Volstad/Wells. Trading for Alberto Callaspo would be better than Ian Stewart, and only cost marginally more.

 

This wasn't a 71 win team last season. There was enough room in the payroll to add players to take us to a mid 80's win team. That doesn't always put you in the playoffs, but it gives you a shot.

 

I get why the front office decided to target a future window instead of opting to make slower yearly gains. And I don't necessarily disagree. But let's not pretend it was the only option.

 

Right. I made no secret about my desire to see the Cubs take advantage of the big name FA market this offseason, but I certainly didn't want to see them only spending money on big names. Hell, I didn't even see it as a necessity to spend on any of the big names (Pujols, Fielder and Darvish). What I was hoping for, however, was at least a middle ground like Rob is talking about, where they both look to take a shot at competing in a weakened division in 2012 AND build for the future. It's certainly not an unrealistic expectation given the resources available to the Cubs.

 

Again, middle ground was perfectly realistic, but the middle ground is a place dave can't process.

[davell]

Rizzo and Brett don't need to be stars, they need to be solid everyday players. Not sure why you don't see them getting much playing time, I fully expect them both to receive a full second half, maybe more, to get some experience. Both are considered to have high floors, so I don't see this as asking for a whole lot. As for Volstad and Wood, both have things going for them as well. Age and solid peripherals being among them. To ask for one to develop into a mid rotation guy seems pretty reasonable. Out of LaHair, Cardenas, and Stewart, I don't see how they're all failed guys right now. Admittedly, I don't see LaHair as a longterm answer, and if he hits, he's still probably going to wind up as a LF. Stewart is the guy I think becomes a legit answer for us. No, he's not going to be Aramis, but I can see good defense and a .750ish OPS out of him. I doubt Cardenas becomes much more than Dewitt, but who knows? Worth giving him some time to see, in my opinion. If you still have Soto(iffy), Rizzo, Castro, Cespedes, Brett, and Stewart as part of your lineup, it gives you a shot at trading for, or signing an OF or 2B for next year. If you have Garza(iffy) or a replacement thru trade, Wood or Volstad as a mid rotation guy, probably the other as a back end guy, it leaves you needing an ace. Which is probably signable thru FA. I just don't think we're anywhere near the stage where we should be thinking this is a 4 or 5 year project.

[Rob]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

[questionmarkgrace]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

 

 

why would that mean no money for soler? we were promised by ricketts that the payroll would remain the same. We are 40 mil short right now by my calculations. Plus were are going to get more advertising revenue from the right field renovations

[davell]

At what point would Edwin Jackson have been too much? Considering he took a one year deal over 3/30 from the Pirates, I'm not sure he was a legit option for us, without a 3 or 4 year deal. Kuroda was a guy we sniffed around, but maybe the whole thing about him wanting to be on a coast was true? Oswalt? Hasn't it been documented he just doesn't like us and didn't want to play here? I was for these types of moves as well. In fact, I wouldn't have been pissed if we handed out one of the huge FA contracts this offseason. But, our payroll is right at 115ish right now and could still climb back towards 130, by signing Cespedes and Soler or some other IFA's. In the end, I bet we spend around the same as last year, when all is finalized.

[davell]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

 

 

why would that mean no money for soler? we were promised by ricketts that the payroll would remain the same. We are 40 mil short right now by my calculations. Plus were are going to get more advertising revenue from the right field renovations

We're right at 115 on the 40 man right now. We went into last year at 135.

[Cubswin11]

What's Soler's status in terms of getting residency (guessing he's going to the DR as well) and time frame on when he becomes a MLB FA? Or has he already gone through all that?

[questionmarkgrace]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

 

 

why would that mean no money for soler? we were promised by ricketts that the payroll would remain the same. We are 40 mil short right now by my calculations. Plus were are going to get more advertising revenue from the right field renovations

We're right at 115 on the 40 man right now. We went into last year at 135.

 

either way that still 20 million. no one was getting 20 mil from us except Fielder who is gone now. And soler may not have to count against the 40 man if they get creative.

[UMFan83]

Nobody likes the rebuilding process. But it's necessary.

 

I wouldn't go that far. There were ways to make this team a fringe contender in 2012 without handing out bad contracts.

Go on. Which free agent contracts did you wish the Cubs had handed out this offseason?

 

Of the biggies, CJ Wilson's deal is the easiest to defend, but that price almost certainly wasn't available to the Cubs.

 

Reyes?

Fielder?

Pujols?

 

How did you get from what I said to "Rob wants to sign 'biggies'?" I was talking about spreading the money around on marginal upgrades and making a handful of smart, low-cost trades.

 

Targeting Edwin Jackson and one of Kuroda / Oswalt would likely be better in the short term than Wood/Volstad/Wells. Trading for Alberto Callaspo would be better than Ian Stewart, and only cost marginally more.

 

This wasn't a 71 win team last season. There was enough room in the payroll to add players to take us to a mid 80's win team. That doesn't always put you in the playoffs, but it gives you a shot.

 

I get why the front office decided to target a future window instead of opting to make slower yearly gains. And I don't necessarily disagree. But let's not pretend it was the only option.

 

I agree with this. If you sign Edwin Jackson and the Cubs suck and you don't want to keep him long term, there's likely to be plenty of suiters for him come July. So you trade him and get assets. Isn't that what the club is trying to do (accumulate assets)?

 

I have no problem with what the Cubs are doing, though it does make me wonder why they won't use the excess payroll lost from last year to do stuff like sign Edwin Jackson with the thought of trading him for prospects in July. Does Theo not deem that a cost efficient way to build the club, or was it the Cubs plan to keep payroll around $100 million until we had the pieces in place for a run?

[Rob]

At what point would Edwin Jackson have been too much? Considering he took a one year deal over 3/30 from the Pirates, I'm not sure he was a legit option for us, without a 3 or 4 year deal. Kuroda was a guy we sniffed around, but maybe the whole thing about him wanting to be on a coast was true? Oswalt? Hasn't it been documented he just doesn't like us and didn't want to play here? I was for these types of moves as well. In fact, I wouldn't have been pissed if we handed out one of the huge FA contracts this offseason. But, our payroll is right at 115ish right now and could still climb back towards 130, by signing Cespedes and Soler or some other IFA's. In the end, I bet we spend around the same as last year, when all is finalized.

 

It's nearly impossible to speculate whether or not those guys would want to sign with us. And perhaps Theo and co. looked into it, they said no, and that's why we are where we are today. There's just no real way of knowing.

 

But if I didn't know the market would do what it did, I'd have probably gone 3/36 on Jackson.

 

For the record, I'd also have been willing to hand out the Darvish and CJ contracts (though CJ took a hometown discount, so he was never a real option at that pricepoint).

 

Didn't realize our payroll was that high right now. I was still thinking like $105 mil, but I guess those tiny contracts to Maholm and DeJesus still count, don't they?

Edited February 8, 2012 by Rob

[Cubswin11]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

 

 

why would that mean no money for soler? we were promised by ricketts that the payroll would remain the same. We are 40 mil short right now by my calculations. Plus were are going to get more advertising revenue from the right field renovations

We're right at 115 on the 40 man right now. We went into last year at 135.

 

either way that still 20 million. no one was getting 20 mil from us except Fielder who is gone now. And soler may not have to count against the 40 man if they get creative.

Well the plan right now seems to be going after Soler, Cespedes and a veteran relief pitcher (guess we have interest in bringing in one since we have been linked to a few guys before they signed elsewhere) right now and if we actually sign all 3 of those that could add $10-15m to the payroll on the 40 man for this year pretty easily.

[questionmarkgrace]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

 

 

why would that mean no money for soler? we were promised by ricketts that the payroll would remain the same. We are 40 mil short right now by my calculations. Plus were are going to get more advertising revenue from the right field renovations

We're right at 115 on the 40 man right now. We went into last year at 135.

 

either way that still 20 million. no one was getting 20 mil from us except Fielder who is gone now. And soler may not have to count against the 40 man if they get creative.

Well the plan right now seems to be going after Soler, Cespedes and a veteran relief pitcher (guess we have interest in bringing in one since we have been linked to a few guys before they signed elsewhere) right now and if we actually sign all 3 of those that could add $10-15m to the payroll on the 40 man for this year pretty easily.

 

If those were our last three moves that would be a great finish to the off season. Two moves for the present and one for the future. I dont see us getting both cubans though with the marlins out there trying to make a marketable splash.

[Cubswin11]

 

why would that mean no money for soler? we were promised by ricketts that the payroll would remain the same. We are 40 mil short right now by my calculations. Plus were are going to get more advertising revenue from the right field renovations

We're right at 115 on the 40 man right now. We went into last year at 135.

 

either way that still 20 million. no one was getting 20 mil from us except Fielder who is gone now. And soler may not have to count against the 40 man if they get creative.

Well the plan right now seems to be going after Soler, Cespedes and a veteran relief pitcher (guess we have interest in bringing in one since we have been linked to a few guys before they signed elsewhere) right now and if we actually sign all 3 of those that could add $10-15m to the payroll on the 40 man for this year pretty easily.

 

If those were our last three moves that would be a great finish to the off season. Two moves for the present and one for the future. I dont see us getting both cubans though with the marlins out there trying to make a marketable splash.

I agree, it seems 1 or 2 of those things happening is more likely than all 3, but like I said the plan at least appears to be to go after those 3 with what is known. So if that's what they are doing now, they need to have that money in the budget and they may very well budget those three moves to bring us into last years payroll range (which is where Ricketts has said he expects/will allow us to be on opening day).

[questionmarkgrace]

"It would be good [to play here]," Cespedes told the Sun-Sentinel on Tuesday. "There are a lot of Cubans and they would support me a lot. Hopefully I can play for the Marlins."

 

 

quote taken out of context? maybe Im being nit picky but this (above) makes it sound like yeah he only wants to play for the marlins. this is the full quote:

 

“It is too early to speak about that, but there is no doubt that I would like to play in front of so many Cubans in Miami,” Cespedes said. “Here, I would get [the Cubans’] support, and that genuine support is very important. But there are things that are out of my control and are best kept with my attorneys.

 

“I am very happy to be in this country, and I will not deny that I would like to play for the Marlins.”

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/08/2630058/miami-marlins-set-to-court-yoenis.html

[davell]

No one knows where Soler is in this process, other than he's behind Cespedes. It's really anyone's guess as to how far. I can't see a way to be creative and keep him off the 40 man either, because he'll be getting a minimum of 20 mill and probably pushes 30, in my opinion. The price we paid Concepcion probably pushed Soler's price up, because other teams are wanting to spend during this last true "free market" atmosphere. Getting him AND Cespedes may be a pipe dream, but if it happened, our payroll would be at or above 130, in all likelihood. The unknowns about our payroll, comes from our overall baseball budget. The budget is around 200 mill total. Last year, the major league payroll was 135ish and we spent close to 20 overall on the draft and IFA. That left 45 to spend on baseball ops salaries and the entire minor leagues. But, what we have to remember is we're paying Quade AND Sveum this year. We're also paying Hoyer AND Hendry this year. We're paying Theo 3.5 mill. We hired McLeod, Bohringer, Rahman, Dorsey and I think a few others as well. In addition to that, the Dominican complex is going to cost us 6 to 8 mill as well. So, this would explain why our payroll conceivably could go down a bit for 2012. After this year, you can probably add 10 mill back to it, because Hendry, Quade, and the Dominican complex will be done with.

[davell]

By the way, our draft/IFA budget for 2012 will be around 11 mill total. Which is down from last year. But, we've already spent 650,000 we know of on 2 Cubans and Levine has mentioned we've signed more. We've also signed at least one kid from Mexico with an unknown bonus and I fully expect us to spend more on IFA between now and when the budget takes affect on July 2nd. I'm not counting Concepcion, Soler, or Cespedes in this, since all would be 40 man roster guys, so they count on the major league payroll. But, the bottom line is we're spending money, it's just been allocated differently, as it should be, in a year where we're rebuilding(even if that's not the word Theo's going to use)

[Banedon]

"It would be good [to play here]," Cespedes told the Sun-Sentinel on Tuesday. "There are a lot of Cubans and they would support me a lot. Hopefully I can play for the Marlins."

 

 

quote taken out of context? maybe Im being nit picky but this (above) makes it sound like yeah he only wants to play for the marlins. this is the full quote:

 

“It is too early to speak about that, but there is no doubt that I would like to play in front of so many Cubans in Miami,” Cespedes said. “Here, I would get [the Cubans’] support, and that genuine support is very important. But there are things that are out of my control and are best kept with my attorneys.

 

“I am very happy to be in this country, and I will not deny that I would like to play for the Marlins.”

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/08/2630058/miami-marlins-set-to-court-yoenis.html

 

Soudns like two different quotes to me.

[davearm2]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

The Cubs front office decided they'd rather try to use their resources and try to get all the pieces to align perfectly during a future window. I don't have a problem with it either. But other paths existed.

Signing Edwin Jackson or Roy Oswalt to a short-term (1 or 2 year) contract would be pointless given the Cubs' situation. It adds a few wins to a sub-.500 team. Who cares. The best you can hope for is to trade them later on. That may be one way to acquire prospects, but it surely must be the least efficient.

 

The Cubs are doing just what they should do... synchronize their spending on big-ticket free agents with the maturation of their young core. That necessarily means passing on this offseason's Fielders and Pujolses and CJ Wilsons, since the young core isn't there yet. If that makes the meatheads whine and cry about how they're not throwing around money like a big-market team should, then so be it.

[Sammy Sofa]

The problem with the middle ground is that it does impact the future somewhat negatively. Signing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt might mean no money Jorge Soler. Holding onto Sean Marshall in hopes of competing would have meant no Wood/Torreyes/Sapelt. There's no Prince Fielder albatross contract weighing the team down, but it does still hurt somewhat.

 

To me the middle ground does include moving Marshall. For all the much vaunted talk of rebuilding the Cubs really haven't made any moves that had to have been done without the intention of competing in 2012, and yes, I include the Marshall deal in that.