Yooooooooooooennis Cespedes: To Oakland pg 44

[javy knows my name]

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.

 

Yeah, you completely missed the point.

 

Had the Cubs front office wanted to, they would have been able to field an over - .500 ballclub while staying within the budget and without saddling the payroll with poor long term contracts.

 

Is it the optimal way to acquire prospects? Absolutely not. But there would have been some semblance of competing during the process. And we'd still be able to make moves to leave us better off in the long run.

I'm guessing the Cubs did make inquiries into guys like Oswalt and Jackson. It's pretty clear Oswalt doesn't want to play here (or anywhere in the Midwest), and Jackson turned down a 3 year deal with the Pirates (who are similar to us) to take a one year deal with someone else. Theo can't make these guys come here, and he shouldn't overpay for them so that they do want to come here. For once, we have a management team willing to show restraint, which is why I won't be upset if we lose out on Cespedes because the Marlins gave him $70 $80 million.

 

Last year, we headed into spring training with a bad team that, if everything went right, could be above .500. This year, we head into spring training with a bad team that, if everything goes right, could be above .500. The difference is that we'll be relying on young-ish players taking a step forward, whereas last year we were relying on old guys repeating career years. I never understood the desire to overpay and give up assets this offseason for a better shot at 83 wins. That's basically been the Cubs' strategy for the past 20 years.

 

This team would really need everything to go right to have a shot at .500. Gigantic rebounds by Dejesus, Soto, Dempster, and Marmol in addition to breakout years by Lahair, Stewart, and T.Wood might give them a shot at .500.

 

What? No.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

 

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate.

 

There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous.

 

That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately.

 

While it would have taken a lot to have made this team a favorite for the division, if nothing else, they could have put together a .500+ team without compromising the future, and a .500 caliber team is a lot more likely to backdoor their way into the post season and even make some mid season moves to make them a favorite than a .400 team, not to mention the fact that a .500 caliber team is a lot easier to build into a .600 caliber team in the next 2-3 years, especially when your farm system is middle of the pack and the bulk of its valueable players very young.

[ctcf]

joe capozzi @joecapMARLINS

#Marlins payroll at $96.185 million and counting after Emilio Bonifacio wins $2.2 mil in arbitration shar.es/fir1L

 

Worth noting.

[mookie]

The Marlins keep losing! I am noticing a trend here people.

[davell]

Their GM said they have something extravagant lined up for Cespedes today, but also said they DO have a budget they can't go over for him.

[bukie]

Their GM said they have something extravagant lined up for Cespedes today, but also said they DO have a budget they can't go over for him.

They're going to show him the center field home run celebration diorama, aren't they.

[mookie]

Their GM said they have something extravagant lined up for Cespedes today, but also said they DO have a budget they can't go over for him.

They're going to show him the center field home run celebration diorama, aren't they.

 

With Zambrano riding one of the Marlins.

[davearm2]

 

Yeah, you completely missed the point.

 

Had the Cubs front office wanted to, they would have been able to field an over - .500 ballclub while staying within the budget and without saddling the payroll with poor long term contracts.

 

Is it the optimal way to acquire prospects? Absolutely not. But there would have been some semblance of competing during the process. And we'd still be able to make moves to leave us better off in the long run.

I didn't miss the point. I just fundamentally disagree with the premise that I bolded above.

 

I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

 

The Cubs won 71 games last year while getting 49 starts from Coleman/Lopez/Ortiz/Russell/Davis. Dempster had an ERA a full run over his peripherals. Randy Wells was never at full strength. And don't forget the Z debacle. Soriano and Soto underachieved. Colvin and Fukudome were sub-replacement level. Byrd's face got exploded.

 

Some of these things happen over the course of a season. You hope you get unexpected production from elsewhere to compensate. But we didn't exactly get a bunch of that. Who is a real candidate to regress? Garza?

 

There was enough talent that adding a few low cost pieces could have easily made the Cubs an over-.500 team. Hell, if we don't trade Garza/Dempster/Byrd/Others, I'd probably put us in the 78 win range right now.

 

Nobody is saying that would have made us a favorite, or even given good odds of "challenging for the postseason in 2012." But the real potential of being relevant after August 1st is nothing to scoff at.

 

(In an effort to avoid my point being misconstrued, I'm gonna state again that I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to blow it up. I'm just arguing against the contention that it was always a necessity.)

Well again, we just don't agree about how close this team is to .500. At this point it seems as though the player losses and additions about cancel out, leaving them in the low-70 win range. Hopefully I'm wrong. Time will tell.

[davearm2]

I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

 

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate.

 

There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous.

 

That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately.

We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine.

 

At least we both approve of what the front office is doing.

 

Let's just leave it at that.

[Guest]

I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

 

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate.

 

There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous.

 

That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately.

We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine.

 

At least we both approve of what the front office is doing.

 

Let's just leave it at that.

 

Just wanted to be sure to point out that big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team pretty easily if that's the route they want to go. If the Cubs managed to do that, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever happened with a big market club.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Dave can't even catch a break when he submits.

[Banedon]

Dave can't even catch a break when he submits.

 

lol...he didn't submit. He just wanted to stop debating.

[Guest]

I'm sure pulling out all the stops will include

 

Seeing models on South Beach, a little taste of Calle Ocho, and a nice Cuban sandwich.

[UMFan83]

The Cubs should take him to Cafe 28 if he visits the city. Great Cuban food just blocks from Wrigley. But if he asks them to show him a Cuban person were screwed.

[davell]

Nah, that's allocated in the payroll for this year: Emergency fund to hire 40,000 Cubans to fill up Wrigley during Cespedes' and Soler's visits.

[davearm2]

I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

 

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate.

 

There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous.

 

That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately.

We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine.

 

At least we both approve of what the front office is doing.

 

Let's just leave it at that.

 

Just wanted to be sure to point out that big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team pretty easily if that's the route they want to go. If the Cubs managed to do that, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever happened with a big market club.

"Big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team" is hardly some global truth, and it surely is not a pretty easy thing to do. If it was, they'd go ahead and do it every time.

 

Under the right conditions it can be done. Those conditions do not exist with the Cubs right now, IMO.

[davearm2]

Dave can't even catch a break when he submits.

 

lol...he didn't submit. He just wanted to stop debating.

There's really nothing left to debate. I view things differently than some others. Nothing wrong with that.

[MSG T]

Under the right conditions it can be done. Those conditions do not exist with the Cubs right now, IMO.

 

 

Right now? You're right, they don't exist. At the start of the off-season they very likely did. Or at least conditions to get them close to 90 wins.

[Guest]

I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

 

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate.

 

There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous.

 

That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately.

We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine.

 

At least we both approve of what the front office is doing.

 

Let's just leave it at that.

 

Just wanted to be sure to point out that big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team pretty easily if that's the route they want to go. If the Cubs managed to do that, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever happened with a big market club.

"Big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team" is hardly some global truth, and it surely is not a pretty easy thing to do. If it was, they'd go ahead and do it every time.

 

Under the right conditions it can be done. Those conditions do not exist with the Cubs right now, IMO.

 

The conditions were right. How do you not see that?

 

Ownership with money to spend? Check

Front Office in place to make smart decisions with the money available to spend? Check

Competitive teams within the division becoming weaker rather than stronger? Check

 

I'm 100% convinced they had the resources to drastically turn this team around THIS year. The front office, however, seems more interested in turning over the entire roster and winning with their team rather than attempting to patch up the mess they were given, which is entirely understandable.

[davearm2]

We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine.

 

At least we both approve of what the front office is doing.

 

Let's just leave it at that.

 

Just wanted to be sure to point out that big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team pretty easily if that's the route they want to go. If the Cubs managed to do that, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever happened with a big market club.

"Big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team" is hardly some global truth, and it surely is not a pretty easy thing to do. If it was, they'd go ahead and do it every time.

 

Under the right conditions it can be done. Those conditions do not exist with the Cubs right now, IMO.

 

The conditions were right. How do you not see that?

 

Ownership with money to spend? Check

Front Office in place to make smart decisions with the money available to spend? Check

Competitive teams within the division becoming weaker rather than stronger? Check

 

I'm 100% convinced they had the resources to drastically turn this team around THIS year. The front office, however, seems more interested in turning over the entire roster and winning with their team rather than attempting to patch up the mess they were given, which is entirely understandable.

Those aren't the conditions I'm referring to. It goes without saying that to pull off the sort of radical transformation you're outlining, a team must have a top notch front office and ownership willing to spend money... lots of it.

 

I was referring to the dearth of above-average or better players on the current roster. There's just very little in the way of established impact players to build around. It's JMHO though.

[ConstableRabbit]

Kind of looks like Aramis here

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2012-02/183561560-07213928.jpg

[Guest]

I actually thought he looked more like Marmol at first.

 

I see Aramis too.

 

He's like one of those weird morph pictures of both of them. :shock:

[ScrubMD]

The Cubs should take him to Cafe 28 if he visits the city. Great Cuban food just blocks from Wrigley. But if he asks them to show him a Cuban person were screwed.

 

Yeah, like when I went to Italy and wanted them to take me to a McDonalds. GET REAL!

[C.C.]

I see a little Mark Grace and Glen Allen Hill. Sexy.

[Abe Frohman]

Definately see some Frank Thomas there.