Cubs trade for Ian Stewart/Weathers pg. 5 (Colvin+DJ)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle doesn't like Castro either, so he probably wouldn't even care.

 

What are you talking about? Castro is awesome. I'm expecting a big leap forward in 2012 from him.

[KingCubsFan]

It is a low-risk, medium to high-reward trade that, worst case scenario, loses this team $1.5 million (or, roughly 1/3 of John Grabow's salary last year).

 

Disagree. It's a low-risk, low-reward trade that, in the most likely scenario, has us losing extra games in 2012 because we are running out a terrible third baseman who is going to get $1.5 to $2.5 million more than he is worth.

Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year. This won't impact our ability to get Fielder, Darvish, etc., so I don't know why you're harping on this trade when it will almost certainly turn out better than your crappy solution to have our C-C+ fringy former prospect get the bulk of the playing time.

[bukie]

Best case scenario Stewart bats .300/.450/.550 with 40 home runs. Worst case scenario he bats .125/.200/.275 and runs over Starlin Castro with his car.

 

Even the most notorious media douches as meh at worst on this trade. I think Kyles the only person out there who has an actual problem with it.

 

The funny part of this post is that you tried to make the worst-case batting line absurdly low, and it's still higher than his actual OPS from 2011.

 

The media douches right now are focused on the trade itself, the relative value of the various players.

 

Eventually, it's going to set in that the 2012 starting 3b for the Chicago Cubs is a guy who couldn't even hold a roster spot on the 73-89 2011 Rockies.

And if he does that, he won't be the starting 3B by the all-star break. Here's the thing, though...what is this infinitely better option? Starting LeMahieu? Worst case scenario is that Stewart just can't hit anymore, and the Cubs use someone else at 3rd for the majority of the first half of the year and are out 2 million. This is the kind of risk a major market team can take that someone like the Rockies can't.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Best case scenario Stewart bats .300/.450/.550 with 40 home runs. Worst case scenario he bats .125/.200/.275 and runs over Starlin Castro with his car.

 

Even the most notorious media douches as meh at worst on this trade. I think Kyles the only person out there who has an actual problem with it.

 

The funny part of this post is that you tried to make the worst-case batting line absurdly low, and it's still higher than his actual OPS from 2011.

 

The media douches right now are focused on the trade itself, the relative value of the various players.

 

Eventually, it's going to set in that the 2012 starting 3b for the Chicago Cubs is a guy who couldn't even hold a roster spot on the 73-89 2011 Rockies.

 

My bet is that Headley was the main target but the Pads wanted too much. Other than that, we'd be looking at DeWitt/Baker. Would you rather he go Jim Hendry on us and give Wilson Betemit or Casey Blake a 3 year deal.

[Yeti]

]

Disagree.

 

every one of kyle's posts in a nutshell

[jersey cubs fan]

(b) demonstrates a "small market mindset" that will permeate the club throughout the coming years is, frankly, stupid.

 

Furthermore, to insinuate that this deal somehow represents "small market mentality" ignores the fact that only ONE player who anyone on this board suggested was a reasonable target has been signed thus far (and at a rate with which many were uncomfortable), and exactly zero major trades have occurred. The process of rebuilding a dead franchise will take a long time, and I, for one, am glad that the people currently in charge have that responsibility.

 

Completely disagree. First off, more than one reasonable target has been signed. Whether the prices were reasonable is besides the point, they were reasonable targets.

 

Furthermore, the fact is they haven't done anything but make middling small market mentality moves yet. They've gone for a cheaper Fukudome with less patience in right field, and a more patient Colvin at 3B. They've made middling moves that probably don't represent all that much of an upgrade to what the Cubs began last season with, if any. So far they haven't done anything big market. They haven't done anything to significantly improve the 2012 team.

 

This wasn't a dead franchise. It was a fundamentally flawed franchise in position to be in contention for the division next year with an impact signing or two, and the financial wherewithal to make that happen. The process of rebuilding the farm system will take time, but we're talking about parallel fronts and a team than can afford to do both. This isn't Pittsburgh. They can, should, and have to do both.

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year.

 

It is not only not a guarantee, I don't think it is even likely.

[WilcoFan]

It is a low-risk, medium to high-reward trade that, worst case scenario, loses this team $1.5 million (or, roughly 1/3 of John Grabow's salary last year).

 

Disagree. It's a low-risk, low-reward trade that, in the most likely scenario, has us losing extra games in 2012 because we are running out a terrible third baseman who is going to get $1.5 to $2.5 million more than he is worth.

 

That's fine. Whatever. You can overreact all you want--I'm done with this thread.

 

More importantly, we got it the first four thousand times you wrote it. Why do you keep writing the same thing?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

My bet is that Headley was the main target but the Pads wanted too much. Other than that, we'd be looking at DeWitt/Baker. Would you rather he go Jim Hendry on us and give Wilson Betemit or Casey Blake a 3 year deal.

 

Out of curiosity, what's the story on Casey Blake? Is he hurt or something? Because a casual glance at his fangraphs page makes him look pretty appealing.

[KingCubsFan]

(b) demonstrates a "small market mindset" that will permeate the club throughout the coming years is, frankly, stupid.

 

Furthermore, to insinuate that this deal somehow represents "small market mentality" ignores the fact that only ONE player who anyone on this board suggested was a reasonable target has been signed thus far (and at a rate with which many were uncomfortable), and exactly zero major trades have occurred. The process of rebuilding a dead franchise will take a long time, and I, for one, am glad that the people currently in charge have that responsibility.

 

Completely disagree. First off, more than one reasonable target has been signed. Whether the prices were reasonable is besides the point, they were reasonable targets.

 

Furthermore, the fact is they haven't done anything but make middling small market mentality moves yet. They've gone for a cheaper Fukudome with less patience in right field, and a more patient Colvin at 3B. They've made middling moves that probably don't represent all that much of an upgrade to what the Cubs began last season with, if any. So far they haven't done anything big market. They haven't done anything to significantly improve the 2012 team.

 

This wasn't a dead franchise. It was a fundamentally flawed franchise in position to be in contention for the division next year with an impact signing or two, and the financial wherewithal to make that happen. The process of rebuilding the farm system will take time, but we're talking about parallel fronts and a team than can afford to do both. This isn't Pittsburgh. They can, should, and have to do both.

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

They've also talked about being smart. Giving Pujols 10 years, 275 million, and a no-trade clause isn't smart. They were interested, made an offer, and got outbid by an owner desperate to make a splash.

[mookie]

Casey Blake is terrible.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

More importantly, we got it the first four thousand times you wrote it. Why do you keep writing the same thing?

 

Because people keep disagreeing, and I like talking about baseball on a site where people talk about baseball.

[Guest]

(b) demonstrates a "small market mindset" that will permeate the club throughout the coming years is, frankly, stupid.

 

Furthermore, to insinuate that this deal somehow represents "small market mentality" ignores the fact that only ONE player who anyone on this board suggested was a reasonable target has been signed thus far (and at a rate with which many were uncomfortable), and exactly zero major trades have occurred. The process of rebuilding a dead franchise will take a long time, and I, for one, am glad that the people currently in charge have that responsibility.

 

Completely disagree. First off, more than one reasonable target has been signed. Whether the prices were reasonable is besides the point, they were reasonable targets.

 

Furthermore, the fact is they haven't done anything but make middling small market mentality moves yet. They've gone for a cheaper Fukudome with less patience in right field, and a more patient Colvin at 3B. They've made middling moves that probably don't represent all that much of an upgrade to what the Cubs began last season with, if any. So far they haven't done anything big market. They haven't done anything to significantly improve the 2012 team.

 

This wasn't a dead franchise. It was a fundamentally flawed franchise in position to be in contention for the division next year with an impact signing or two, and the financial wherewithal to make that happen. The process of rebuilding the farm system will take time, but we're talking about parallel fronts and a team than can afford to do both. This isn't Pittsburgh. They can, should, and have to do both.

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

 

Aren't you the one who was ripping (rightly so) the national media guys for not knowing if the Cubs were willing to spend money on players just because they hadn't yet?

 

Who cares what they haven't done yet? It's been a [expletive] month. Only an idiot thinks that these early moves are going to be representative of their overall body of work here.

[Guest]

Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year.

 

It is not only not a guarantee, I don't think it is even likely.

 

Than Flaherty? He has all the problems you have with Stewart, except he had them at AAA. He's also 1 year younger than Stewart.

[Guest]

Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year.

 

It is not only not a guarantee, I don't think it is even likely.

 

Why is it that you think that his injury plagued 2011 is so much more representative of his actual current abilities than his 2008-2010 that it's not even worth taking the $1.5M gamble?

[WilcoFan]

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

 

 

Who exactly are you arguing against?

[Guest]

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

 

 

Who exactly are you arguing against?

 

 

The seeming majority of the general public, the local media, some national media, and only a couple of idiots on this site, I guess.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why is it that you think that his injury plagued 2011 is so much more representative of his actual current abilities than his 2008-2010 that it's not even worth taking the $1.5M gamble?

 

Two reasons:

 

1) Guys with his K percentages are known to have career-ending collapses after a few brief years of adequacy. See Bellhorn, Mark.

 

2) Significant wrist injuries are known to have lingering effects on batters the next year.

 

And since I wasn't all that impressed with his 2008-2010, I don't see the upside.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year.

 

It is not only not a guarantee, I don't think it is even likely.

 

Than Flaherty? He has all the problems you have with Stewart, except he had them at AAA. He's also 1 year younger than Stewart.

 

Than the general idea of a platoon based around Baker and internal options.

[Little Slide Rooter]

My bet is that Headley was the main target but the Pads wanted too much. Other than that, we'd be looking at DeWitt/Baker. Would you rather he go Jim Hendry on us and give Wilson Betemit or Casey Blake a 3 year deal.

 

Out of curiosity, what's the story on Casey Blake? Is he hurt or something? Because a casual glance at his fangraphs page makes him look pretty appealing.

 

He's 38 and he's hurt. Pass.

[Guest]

Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year.

 

It is not only not a guarantee, I don't think it is even likely.

 

Than Flaherty? He has all the problems you have with Stewart, except he had them at AAA. He's also 1 year younger than Stewart.

 

Than the general idea of a platoon based around Baker and internal options.

 

Stewart can't be part of a platoon? Or is the 50 extra ABs Stewart would get before getting platooned/replaced that big a concern?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Stewart can't be part of a platoon? Or is the 50 extra ABs Stewart would get before getting platooned/replaced that big a concern?

 

The current plan is for Stewart to be the starting 3b. That's my big problem.

 

If he's a backup/platoon guy, I don't love him, but it's close enough that I don't care.

[jersey cubs fan]

Aren't you the one who was ripping (rightly so) the national media guys for not knowing if the Cubs were willing to spend money on players just because they hadn't yet?

 

Who cares what they haven't done yet? It's been a [expletive] month. Only an idiot thinks that these early moves are going to be representative of their overall body of work here.

 

I'm just pointing out that the fact it is true they haven't done anything but small market stuff yet. It's not about doubting whether they are willing to spend. There's plenty of reason to doubt if they ever actually will.

 

It's been a month, but it's the most important month where most of the biggest moves happen. I want the 2012 Cubs to be a hell of a lot better, and so far they aren't. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

[CubColtPacer]

(b) demonstrates a "small market mindset" that will permeate the club throughout the coming years is, frankly, stupid.

 

Furthermore, to insinuate that this deal somehow represents "small market mentality" ignores the fact that only ONE player who anyone on this board suggested was a reasonable target has been signed thus far (and at a rate with which many were uncomfortable), and exactly zero major trades have occurred. The process of rebuilding a dead franchise will take a long time, and I, for one, am glad that the people currently in charge have that responsibility.

 

Completely disagree. First off, more than one reasonable target has been signed. Whether the prices were reasonable is besides the point, they were reasonable targets.

 

Furthermore, the fact is they haven't done anything but make middling small market mentality moves yet. They've gone for a cheaper Fukudome with less patience in right field, and a more patient Colvin at 3B. They've made middling moves that probably don't represent all that much of an upgrade to what the Cubs began last season with, if any. So far they haven't done anything big market. They haven't done anything to significantly improve the 2012 team.

 

This wasn't a dead franchise. It was a fundamentally flawed franchise in position to be in contention for the division next year with an impact signing or two, and the financial wherewithal to make that happen. The process of rebuilding the farm system will take time, but we're talking about parallel fronts and a team than can afford to do both. This isn't Pittsburgh. They can, should, and have to do both.

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

 

I think the parallel fronts thing has been a bit overblown. They've consistently said that they are willing to improve the short-term as long as it doesn't hurt the long-term. Then they go out and reportedly offer a shorter deal to Pujols for large money which is consistent with that philosophy. The signing of Dejesus does the same thing by helping the next two years but retaining flexibility. The Stewart move is trying to find an asset at a position where they probably just see stopgaps available otherwise.

 

Now, does that mean the 2012 team is probably going to be bad? I would say so. It's hard to dramatically improve a team in an offseason when you aren't willing to even slightly hurt the long-term to do so. If they get lucky and get a Darvish or Fielder at figures (especially number of years) that they're comfortable with then that would fit in their box they've set out for themselves. They're going to do everything in their power to find assets and improve the team as long as it doesn't interfere with their bigger goal.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

 

Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts.

 

 

Who exactly are you arguing against?

 

I'm not arguing, just pointing out the nonsense in your post.