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

[mookie]

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.

 

Wouldn't he command more money too? So far Kyle, I am guessing your more valued third base options are vets like Aramis and Blake. Both of which cost the team more than the one they are apparently rolling with. With free agent acquisition yet to be made, I don't understand why you are so against this route. I am not trying to sway you, but a few weeks ago I would have thought you would be one of the posters at least in the "Lets see what else we get" category.

[CubsWin]

I liked the idea of Colvin for Stewart and I had read that the Cubs didn't want to do LeMaheiu for Stewart so when I saw that the Cubs had dealt Colvin and LeMaheiu for Stewart and a minor leaguer, I was excited to see who this prospect was!

 

A 26 year old reliever who put up an ERA over 5 at AA and struggled with this control throughout the year? What am I missing on Casey Weathers besides he was a 1st rounder? I know he's been injured a lot, but for a pitcher that's not exactly a good thing...

[jersey cubs fan]

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. .

 

 

Signing stud free agents doesn't hurt the long-term. There's an over the top obsession with being financially flexible 7 years from now that makes no sense.

[XZero771679666304]

(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.

 

Whether the reasonable targets thus far were signed at reasonable terms is very germane to the argument.

 

And of course the team can build on multiple fronts, given the resources the team has. And they should. But to cry about the FO operating with a small/mid-market mentality on December 9th, when a number of sensible targets are still in play and the contracts that have been signed have been varying degrees of foolish...it's a bit much.

 

People are impatient and restless because they see things happening and they want to the the Cubs doing similar things, often regardless of how prudent those things would be. They want to see action for the sake of action.

 

If in late January we look back at these moves as the highlights of the offseason, we can justifiably be concerned about the methodology of the front office, but not now.

 

Hating on moves like this and the DeJesus signing because of a fear that they are indicative of what's to come is irrational and childish at best.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wouldn't he command more money too? So far Kyle, I am guessing your more valued third base options are vets like Aramis and Blake. Both of which cost the team more than the one they are apparently rolling with. With free agent acquisition yet to be made, I don't understand why you are so against this route. I am not trying to sway you, but a few weeks ago I would have thought you would be one of the posters at least in the "Lets see what else we get" category.

 

I'm not against going cheap at 3b to save money elsewhere. I'm highly for it. I just think Ian Stewart is a really bad way to do that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I liked the idea of Colvin for Stewart and I had read that the Cubs didn't want to do LeMaheiu for Stewart so when I saw that the Cubs had dealt Colvin and LeMaheiu for Stewart and a minor leaguer, I was excited to see who this prospect was!

 

A 26 year old reliever who put up an ERA over 5 at AA and struggled with this control throughout the year? What am I missing on Casey Weathers besides he was a 1st rounder? I know he's been injured a lot, but for a pitcher that's not exactly a good thing...

 

He throws really hard. If he ever learns even a smidge of command, he could be a great reliever.

 

Basically, he's a scouting-based reclamation project. The Cubs think they can fix his mechanics or something.

[Guest]

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.

 

The LH 3B options are DeWitt and Flaherty, so Stewart is an upgrade there. So your worry is that if Stewart is awful against LHP that we'll continue to send him out there instead of Baker?

[CubColtPacer]

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. .

 

 

Signing stud free agents doesn't hurt the long-term. There's an over the top obsession with being financially flexible 7 years from now that makes no sense.

 

I think the current management would disagree with you. If the reports about the Pujols offer were true, they were clearly willing to spend money. They just weren't willing to lose that flexibility when Pujols declines.

[treebird]

FUN GAME

 

guess the cubs' payroll next year if we don't sign fielder or darvish

 

i'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. i'm honestly curious. is there any way we get to 130 million? do you think the ricketts are concerned at all about what the fan perception would be if the payroll dipped dramatically? i really can't believe we're going to pass on every expensive free agent and then trade for anybody who costs anything.

 

i really, really think that we are operating under the presumption that darvish is coming.

[Banedon]

FUN GAME

 

guess the cubs' payroll next year if we don't sign fielder or darvish

 

i'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. i'm honestly curious. is there any way we get to 130 million? do you think the ricketts are concerned at all about what the fan perception would be if the payroll dipped dramatically? i really can't believe we're going to pass on every expensive free agent and then trade for anybody who costs anything.

 

i really, really think that we are operating under the presumption that darvish is coming.

 

So if we find out that we lost the Darvish bid, do we sign Fielder the next day?

[jersey cubs fan]

But to cry about the FO operating with a small/mid-market mentality on December 9th, when a number of sensible targets are still in play and the contracts that have been signed have been varying degrees of foolish...it's a bit much.

 

People are impatient and restless because they see things happening and they want to the the Cubs doing similar things, often regardless of how prudent those things would be. They want to see action for the sake of action.

 

If in late January we look back at these moves as the highlights of the offseason, we can justifiably be concerned about the methodology of the front office, but not now.

 

Crying about anything regarding baseball is foolish. Pointing out that what they've done so far is very small market is accurate.

 

Every year we hear how early in the process we are until we go to spring training and hear how there's still plenty of time and then it's May and the trading deadline is still long away. It's not early anymore. There's time to improve on what they've done, but there's no doubt they need to improve on what they've done. Why can't somebody be skeptical without being labeled an idiot, impatient, a whiner and foolish?

[Guest]

FUN GAME

 

guess the cubs' payroll next year if we don't sign fielder or darvish

 

i'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. i'm honestly curious. is there any way we get to 130 million? do you think the ricketts are concerned at all about what the fan perception would be if the payroll dipped dramatically? i really can't believe we're going to pass on every expensive free agent and then trade for anybody who costs anything.

 

i really, really think that we are operating under the presumption that darvish is coming.

 

that posting fee would be one place that big chunk of change for next year could be going.

[CubColtPacer]

FUN GAME

 

guess the cubs' payroll next year if we don't sign fielder or darvish

 

i'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. i'm honestly curious. is there any way we get to 130 million? do you think the ricketts are concerned at all about what the fan perception would be if the payroll dipped dramatically? i really can't believe we're going to pass on every expensive free agent and then trade for anybody who costs anything.

 

i really, really think that we are operating under the presumption that darvish is coming.

 

110-120 million would be my guess. The Cubs will still sign some pitching, and of course how big the contract is for whoever plays 1B will help dictate that. But I do think the Cubs hope that they find a way to get one of those two.

[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.

 

The LH 3B options are DeWitt and Flaherty, so Stewart is an upgrade there. So your worry is that if Stewart is awful against LHP that we'll continue to send him out there instead of Baker?

 

I'm not convinced Stewart is an upgrade over Dewitt vs. righties.

 

.254 .318 .373 .692 With Dodger Stadium as the home park for half of that.

.240 .324 .435 .759 With Coors Field as the home park.

 

Throw in that UZR like's Dewitt's defense a bit better, and it's close. And that's if we ignore the very real possibility that Stewart's power won't be coming back after the wrist injury.

 

Seeing as how DeWitt is about $2 million cheaper, I think I prefer him to Stewart for the platoon that isn't happening.

[jersey cubs fan]

FUN GAME

 

guess the cubs' payroll next year if we don't sign fielder or darvish

 

i'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. i'm honestly curious. is there any way we get to 130 million? do you think the ricketts are concerned at all about what the fan perception would be if the payroll dipped dramatically? i really can't believe we're going to pass on every expensive free agent and then trade for anybody who costs anything.

 

i really, really think that we are operating under the presumption that darvish is coming.

 

At this point I doubt Ricketts is all that concerned about perception. He's made his splash and if that is what he gets out of this winter, he'd probably be willing to go into the season without going all in, so to speak. It's smart from a business standpoint, don't just spend to spend. My guess is now fielder or no darvish has them well below $130m next year. I can't imagine any reason to get extra spendy at that point.

[pccubfan]

(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 agree with this post, although you are being too generous to the FO. This team is without a doubt worse than the team that opened the 2011 season. I understand that this is a work in progress but as of right now it is truth. The major league roster needs an infusion of top shelf talent in order to compete. We can argue about comfort level all we want but the market is telling us what top level talent costs. The FO is being paid handsomely to build this team. With the resources the team has available this should not take more than a couple of years. If this team hasn't been significantly improved by the opening of the 2014 season, then Theo and Jed have to answer for it at that time. I'm hoping that 2012 and 2013 don't have to be throwaway seasons in order for this to happen but am prepared, personally to reserve judgement until that time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

FUN GAME

 

guess the cubs' payroll next year if we don't sign fielder or darvish

 

i'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. i'm honestly curious. is there any way we get to 130 million? do you think the ricketts are concerned at all about what the fan perception would be if the payroll dipped dramatically? i really can't believe we're going to pass on every expensive free agent and then trade for anybody who costs anything.

 

i really, really think that we are operating under the presumption that darvish is coming.

 

If we fill out the rest of the roster right now with scrubs, I think that gets us to like $110 million (assuming the Pena deferral counts against this year, as reported). We'd probably spend another $8 million in one-year deals for some pointless vets. So I'd say $118 million.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seeing as how DeWitt is about $2 million cheaper, I think I prefer him to Stewart for the platoon that isn't happening.

 

No thanks. He may never do what we hope, but I'd easily prefer Stewart to DeWitt for a 2012 platoon.

[XZero771679666304]

But to cry about the FO operating with a small/mid-market mentality on December 9th, when a number of sensible targets are still in play and the contracts that have been signed have been varying degrees of foolish...it's a bit much.

 

People are impatient and restless because they see things happening and they want to the the Cubs doing similar things, often regardless of how prudent those things would be. They want to see action for the sake of action.

 

If in late January we look back at these moves as the highlights of the offseason, we can justifiably be concerned about the methodology of the front office, but not now.

 

Crying about anything regarding baseball is foolish. Pointing out that what they've done so far is very small market is accurate.

 

Every year we hear how early in the process we are until we go to spring training and hear how there's still plenty of time and then it's May and the trading deadline is still long away. It's not early anymore. There's time to improve on what they've done, but there's no doubt they need to improve on what they've done. Why can't somebody be skeptical without being labeled an idiot, impatient, a whiner and foolish?

 

It is early, plenty of targets are still available. It's not as if MLB is buzzing with action. Only 2-3 teams have been really active. And it seems that the Cubs were in on a few of the targets that fell, but weren't quite willing to go where the teams that signed them went, a fact that I am grateful for.

 

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

[jersey cubs fan]

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

 

A big market team that is in on talks for big market moves but only makes small market moves is operating in small market mode until they actually make a big market move.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

 

A big market team that is in on talks for big market moves but only makes small market moves is operating in small market mode until they actually make a big market move.

 

Okay, I'm going to get torched for this, but so be it.

 

I think the Cubs are still serious about Fielder. I'm less convinced about their seriousness about Darvish, though I want him quite a bit. That posting fee is just a problem.

 

But okay, devil's advocate.

 

For a year or so now, we've been dealing with reports and speculation from stupid people in the medai that said that the Cubs would/should punt on 2012 and maybe even 2013, lower payroll and "rebuild."

 

In some bizzaro universe where that was actually what was happening, what would that look like?

 

Signing a poor man's Fukudome for RF? Take a lottery ticket to start at 3b? Actively shop Garza for prospects? Make offers to big-name free agents that we know they won't take? Talk a lot to Cubs fans about patience?

[XZero771679666304]

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

 

A big market team that is in on talks for big market moves but only makes small market moves is operating in small market mode until they actually make a big market move.

 

You can't make that claim until you know what they're planning, which you don't. If the moves thus far have been made with Darvish and Fielder in mind, they weren't really operating in small market mode.

 

A small/mid-market team doesn't even inquire on Pujols, Wilson, etc.

[Little Slide Rooter]

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

 

A big market team that is in on talks for big market moves but only makes small market moves is operating in small market mode until they actually make a big market move.

 

The Yankees and Red Sox are in small market mode.

[treebird]

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

 

A big market team that is in on talks for big market moves but only makes small market moves is operating in small market mode until they actually make a big market move.

 

The Yankees and Red Sox are in small market mode.

 

they don't have lousy rosters as of this moment though, that's a pretty terrible comparison

[jersey cubs fan]

You can be skeptical, and saying the moves made this far have been small/mid-market-ish would be fairly accurate. But to insinuate the FO is operating in small market mode without looking at the context of a full offseason is awfully reactionary and stupid.

 

A big market team that is in on talks for big market moves but only makes small market moves is operating in small market mode until they actually make a big market move.

 

You can't make that claim until you know what they're planning, which you don't. If the moves thus far have been made with Darvish and Fielder in mind, they weren't really operating in small market mode.

 

A small/mid-market team doesn't even inquire on Pujols, Wilson, etc.

 

Miami did.

 

They don't get to just plan, and then have that plan work perfectly. In a market with extremely limited resources, you either acquire them or you don't, it doesn't matter if you planned on it.