Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[Tracer Bullet]

I hate the DH.

 

i agree

 

Yup.

[Exile on Waveland]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

[davell]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

To be honest, if we didn't get one of those guys I don't think we could win the division, maybe even if we did. I said this last year, but if we were to compete, a lot of things would have to go right. I think next year will be a 2 horse race between Milwaukee and Cincy. However, the next year The Brewers are likely to lose at least one of Greinke and Marcum and the Reds could lose Votto. If between now and 2013 we could land Fielder, an ace, a mud rotation pitcher and 1 more decent bat in the outfield, 2nd, or 3rd, we'll be the favorites again. If Ian Stewart can figure things out that would be awesome too.

[Exile on Waveland]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

"At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club.

 

Second, claiming the Cubs haven't missed out on anyone that helps the present and future is patently false. Wilson and Pujols both would have helped present and future. Caveats obviously apply to both, but both players would have helped both next year and in future seasons.

[Rob]

Soriano didn't teach anybody anything about Fielder. The two situations are nothing similar. Soriano was barely even arbitration eligible when he was Fielder's age right now. Soriano signed when he already passed through most of his prime and had a glaringly obvious fatal flaw that was easily exploited, and no position in the field. Even with all his obvious flaws, if you signed Soriano to his contract at age 27 instead of going into his age 31 season, you wouldn't have been hurt but what he eventually did during that time frame. Soriano wasn't a star, and he was too old for that deal when he signed it, not to mention a hacker. Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production after already having consistently produced through his early-to-mid 20's.

 

Do you really not realize what carrying around an extra 80 pounds does to a body? Fielder may be 27, but his body has been stressed like a man much older than that. He is the oldest 27 year old you have ever seen.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Soriano didn't teach anybody anything about Fielder. The two situations are nothing similar. Soriano was barely even arbitration eligible when he was Fielder's age right now. Soriano signed when he already passed through most of his prime and had a glaringly obvious fatal flaw that was easily exploited, and no position in the field. Even with all his obvious flaws, if you signed Soriano to his contract at age 27 instead of going into his age 31 season, you wouldn't have been hurt but what he eventually did during that time frame. Soriano wasn't a star, and he was too old for that deal when he signed it, not to mention a hacker. Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production after already having consistently produced through his early-to-mid 20's.

 

Do you really not realize what carrying around an extra 80 pounds does to a body? Fielder may be 27, but his body has been stressed like a man much older than that. He is the oldest 27 year old you have ever seen.

 

Luckily for Fielder, Lindsey Lohan is 2 years away from taking the title.

[minnesotacubsfan]

he's roouunnd...and I love him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soriano didn't teach anybody anything about Fielder. The two situations are nothing similar. Soriano was barely even arbitration eligible when he was Fielder's age right now. Soriano signed when he already passed through most of his prime and had a glaringly obvious fatal flaw that was easily exploited, and no position in the field. Even with all his obvious flaws, if you signed Soriano to his contract at age 27 instead of going into his age 31 season, you wouldn't have been hurt but what he eventually did during that time frame. Soriano wasn't a star, and he was too old for that deal when he signed it, not to mention a hacker. Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production after already having consistently produced through his early-to-mid 20's.

 

Do you really not realize what carrying around an extra 80 pounds does to a body? Fielder may be 27, but his body has been stressed like a man much older than that. He is the oldest 27 year old you have ever seen.

 

Some people are just big.

[bcl412]

I feel like Prince is big because of genetics or whatever and not so much because he's lazy. If you look at the guys dad, the fact that he was just a gigantic child and the fact that he's on strict diet from what I understand and he's not getting smaller (I thought he lost weight but he's still big).

 

Weather that means anything different in terms of wear and tear on the body I don't know but my fear of him getting lazy and sucking earlier because of it is diminished a bit compared to what it would normally be with if we were signing a big dude.

[davell]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

"At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club.

 

Second, claiming the Cubs haven't missed out on anyone that helps the present and future is patently false. Wilson and Pujols both would have helped present and future. Caveats obviously apply to both, but both players would have helped both next year and in future seasons.

It's not a "strawman" argument whatsoever. Yeah, Pujols and Wilson have been signed. There were and ARE better longterm answers for us STILL out there. Of course, we're going to have to overpay if we land either Fielder or Darvish as well. Is it worth it? I don't know, neither do you and neither does Theo. But, you don't go out and shoot your wad just because you can either. I hope we do get Fielder. I kind of want Darvish. But, Theo may not want either, for all we know. Maybe he wants to spend heavily on IFA right now, sign Kuroda, Beltran, and trade for Kendry Morales for this offseason, so he can load up next offseason with those guys falling off the books, plus Z, Dempster, Byrd. Maybe he knows Matt Cain and Zack Greinke both want to play here? Maybe he knows Cole Hamels does? Maybe not. But who knows? Certainly not me. Neither do you. But if he wants to spend freely next year and sign some one year contract guys for this year, I'm fine with it. He'll figure out a way to be better than last year and it won't hurt our future either. But, for a team that has as many holes as it does and a very average system as well, if he wants to concentrate on the system part more for a season or two, who's to blame him? He'll put a good enough major league team out there, because he knows how to. But, if you want a guy who's going to blow through 35 or 40 mill on 2 guys just because he has the budget to do so, I really, really think you're going to be disappointed. He's not going for a quick fix and get us to 85-88 wins for a 2 or 3 year period. He's going to build it to where we're going to be a perennial 90 win team. That takes time. A hell of a lot more than the month he's been given to date.

[hawkeyecub]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

"At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club.

 

Well said.

[ctcf]

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

"At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club.

 

Well said.

 

One would hope that by the time they do get around to dropping off in production, the powers that be have managed to construct a team to account for that dropoff.

[davearm2]

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

"At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club.

 

Well said.

 

One would hope that by the time they do get around to dropping off in production, the powers that be have managed to construct a team to account for that dropoff.

Or even better, the powers that be have steered clear of that dropoff altogether, so that when they have a strong team constructed, it's not hindered by an overpaid, declining veteran.

 

Just because the Cubs can overcome such a situation, doesn't mean they should choose to put themselves in it.

[TruffleShuffle]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

[davell]

My short answer is this: We have 30 to 40 mill to spend in all likelihood. If we spend it on difference makers, I want it spent on guys in their primes or entering their primes. This means Fielder, Darvish, Cespedes, possibly Edwin Jackson, if he's cheap. Next year, we'll have around the same amount to spend. Again, spend it on guys who are young. This being said, I won't mind one bit if 10 mill or so from this year's payroll goes towards Soler and some other IFA, who can be difference makers down the road possibly. That's what I mean by building for now and for the future at the same time. Because to build a longterm success here, our system needs a bigtime infusion of top end talent. And it's not going to be easy to do with the new rules set to take affect.

[pccubfan]

My short answer is this: We have 30 to 40 mill to spend in all likelihood. If we spend it on difference makers, I want it spent on guys in their primes or entering their primes. This means Fielder, Darvish, Cespedes, possibly Edwin Jackson, if he's cheap. Next year, we'll have around the same amount to spend. Again, spend it on guys who are young. This being said, I won't mind one bit if 10 mill or so from this year's payroll goes towards Soler and some other IFA, who can be difference makers down the road possibly. That's what I mean by building for now and for the future at the same time. Because to build a longterm success here, our system needs a bigtime infusion of top end talent. And it's not going to be easy to do with the new rules set to take affect.

 

Are you willing to give Hamels seven or eight years?

[davell]

My short answer is this: We have 30 to 40 mill to spend in all likelihood. If we spend it on difference makers, I want it spent on guys in their primes or entering their primes. This means Fielder, Darvish, Cespedes, possibly Edwin Jackson, if he's cheap. Next year, we'll have around the same amount to spend. Again, spend it on guys who are young. This being said, I won't mind one bit if 10 mill or so from this year's payroll goes towards Soler and some other IFA, who can be difference makers down the road possibly. That's what I mean by building for now and for the future at the same time. Because to build a longterm success here, our system needs a bigtime infusion of top end talent. And it's not going to be easy to do with the new rules set to take affect.

 

Are you willing give Hamel seven or eight years?

I love Hamels, but my answer would be "it depends." Who else is guaranteed to be in our rotation next year? Do we still have Garza? If not, do we have a reasonably suitable replacement. How much is it going to cost to sign Greinke, Cain, Danks, Liriano, McCarthy, or Sanchez? Who's on the trade market? If the answer is all of these guys are going to be expensive, we have Garza, and we have an offense that's at least passable, then the answer is "yes". If the move prevents us from doing other things though and we have multiple needs and not a lot of money available for this, then I'm going to reallocate it and try to fill things cheaper. Maybe through trades. I've said previously that I'm looking at this in a 2 year window. We have the money available over that period of time to come up with 2 impact bats and 2 impact pitchers, without neglecting the system in any way. How they get to this scenario, I don't care. It can all come next offseason. It can be 2 this offseason and 2 next. My guess though is it'll be one this offseason, one at the deadline, and 2 next offseason.

[pccubfan]

My short answer is this: We have 30 to 40 mill to spend in all likelihood. If we spend it on difference makers, I want it spent on guys in their primes or entering their primes. This means Fielder, Darvish, Cespedes, possibly Edwin Jackson, if he's cheap. Next year, we'll have around the same amount to spend. Again, spend it on guys who are young. This being said, I won't mind one bit if 10 mill or so from this year's payroll goes towards Soler and some other IFA, who can be difference makers down the road possibly. That's what I mean by building for now and for the future at the same time. Because to build a longterm success here, our system needs a bigtime infusion of top end talent. And it's not going to be easy to do with the new rules set to take affect.

 

Are you willing give Hamel seven or eight years?

I love Hamels, but my answer would be "it depends." Who else is guaranteed to be in our rotation next year? Do we still have Garza? If not, do we have a reasonably suitable replacement. How much is it going to cost to sign Greinke, Cain, Danks, Liriano, McCarthy, or Sanchez? Who's on the trade market? If the answer is all of these guys are going to be expensive, we have Garza, and we have an offense that's at least passable, then the answer is "yes". If the move prevents us from doing other things though and we have multiple needs and not a lot of money available for this, then I'm going to reallocate it and try to fill things cheaper. Maybe through trades. I've said previously that I'm looking at this in a 2 year window. We have the money available over that period of time to come up with 2 impact bats and 2 impact pitchers, without neglecting the system in any way. How they get to this scenario, I don't care. It can all come next offseason. It can be 2 this offseason and 2 next. My guess though is it'll be one this offseason, one at the deadline, and 2 next offseason.

 

Are you saying Garza plus two impact pitchers?

[davell]

Yes, I am. One, because I think truly elite teams usually do. Two, because I see no real way to where the offense is going to be much more than average by then. I'm not necessarily saying we should sign 2 bigtime FA SP though. Hopefully, one will come through trade. Ideally a younger cost controlled guy that doesn't kill the payroll. Let's us find some offense basically.

[pccubfan]

Yes, I am. One, because I think truly elite teams usually do. Two, because I see no real way to where the offense is going to be much more than average by then. I'm not necessarily saying we should sign 2 bigtime FA SP though. Hopefully, one will come through trade. Ideally a younger cost controlled guy that doesn't kill the payroll. Let's us find some offense basically.

 

Exactly how do you see the Cubs acquiring two impact bats and two impact arms without trading Garza using the Cubs' system? Do you think they have the pieces to obtain two of those impact players via trade or is it more likely three signings and one trade? I can't see two impact players being obtained with Cubs' prospects without absolutely emptying the system. I do agree that this will probably take two years.

[davell]

Yes, I am. One, because I think truly elite teams usually do. Two, because I see no real way to where the offense is going to be much more than average by then. I'm not necessarily saying we should sign 2 bigtime FA SP though. Hopefully, one will come through trade. Ideally a younger cost controlled guy that doesn't kill the payroll. Let's us find some offense basically.

 

Exactly how do you see the Cubs acquiring two impact bats and two impact arms without trading Garza using the Cubs' system? Do you think they have the pieces to obtain two of those impact players via trade or is it more likely three signings and one trade? I can't see two impact players being obtained with Cubs' prospects without absolutely emptying the system. I do agree that this will probably take two years.

Just one through a trade, and probably not until after the draft next year, after it's been restocked somewhat. We'll have 4 picks inside the top 100 next year, counting the 2 supplemental picks. It's why I'm advocating spending as much as we can on IFA between now and then as well. Take full advantage of the opportunity to restock as possible. Adding Jorge Soler, if we think he's a potential star is very important. Even if we give him a 5 year deal for over 20 mill. Maybe look at Anelki Garcia Speck, this Concepcion kid that's 19, the Korean pitcher represented by Boras, the Dominican pitchers left unsigned from last year's July signing period. And anyone else that may have an impact. I'd love to see 10 or 12 mill spent doing this. It'd make it a hell of a lot easier to trade off Szczur or McNutt or Baez or whoever else, if it nets us an impact guy. Because we'd have guys in the system looking like they'll soon be able to fill in around the impact guys we're spending heavily on. Because starting with the draft next year, it really seems like it's going to be much harder to build a system quickly. And for us to sustain longterm success, it's just as important as signing the bigname FA, as far as I'm concerned.

[pccubfan]

Yes, I am. One, because I think truly elite teams usually do. Two, because I see no real way to where the offense is going to be much more than average by then. I'm not necessarily saying we should sign 2 bigtime FA SP though. Hopefully, one will come through trade. Ideally a younger cost controlled guy that doesn't kill the payroll. Let's us find some offense basically.

 

Exactly how do you see the Cubs acquiring two impact bats and two impact arms without trading Garza using the Cubs' system? Do you think they have the pieces to obtain two of those impact players via trade or is it more likely three signings and one trade? I can't see two impact players being obtained with Cubs' prospects without absolutely emptying the system. I do agree that this will probably take two years.

Just one through a trade, and probably not until after the draft next year, after it's been restocked somewhat. We'll have 4 picks inside the top 100 next year, counting the 2 supplemental picks. It's why I'm advocating spending as much as we can on IFA between now and then as well. Take full advantage of the opportunity to restock as possible. Adding Jorge Soler, if we think he's a potential star is very important. Even if we give him a 5 year deal for over 20 mill. Maybe look at Anelki Garcia Speck, this Concepcion kid that's 19, the Korean pitcher represented by Boras, the Dominican pitchers left unsigned from last year's July signing period. And anyone else that may have an impact. I'd love to see 10 or 12 mill spent doing this. It'd make it a hell of a lot easier to trade off Szczur or McNutt or Baez or whoever else, if it nets us an impact guy. Because we'd have guys in the system looking like they'll soon be able to fill in around the impact guys we're spending heavily on. Because starting with the draft next year, it really seems like it's going to be much harder to build a system quickly. And for us to sustain longterm success, it's just as important as signing the bigname FA, as far as I'm concerned.

 

A lot is going to have to go right in a very short amount of time in this scenario. Not only are the Cubs going to have to sign a few of the top IFA players available, against stiff competition, but those they sign have to show that they are worth the money they received the next two years. They are going to have to draft well and get those guys they drafted to sign. The system is going to have to have a number of guys step up and perform at a high level. They can't afford to have more than one or two of their top players to go down to a major injury. They have to find a match with a team that has an impact player available. Finally, they have to be willing to pull the trigger. I'm not going to say that this can't or won't happen, but it would be much easier to see this type of thing happening if the Cubs' system was currently a top two or three system.

[ctcf]

The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be.

 

"At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club.

 

Well said.

 

One would hope that by the time they do get around to dropping off in production, the powers that be have managed to construct a team to account for that dropoff.

Or even better, the powers that be have steered clear of that dropoff altogether, so that when they have a strong team constructed, it's not hindered by an overpaid, declining veteran.

 

Just because the Cubs can overcome such a situation, doesn't mean they should choose to put themselves in it.

 

Oh, great idea. I do believe the only way to do this would be to not sign any significant free agents unless they're 24-25 and a can't miss. We'll be back up to snuff in no time.

[CincyCubsFan]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.