Star players and how they are acquired

[CubColtPacer]

 

Doesn't that just skew unnecessarily into the "just wait for the farm to work everything out" situation? It's simple, but I'm not sure how intuitive it is to pretend trading for a ready made prospect is the same as drafting/signing/developing your own star. Your theory seems to suggest we should just wait for the farm to do it's work, but if you wait for the farm it's going to take forever. You have to acquire other people's stars if you don't want to wait that long. That is done either via trade, of budding superstars (reasonable), already established pre free agency stars (farm clearers + money), or free agency (money). The Cubs have money, they don't have a farm or the assets to trade for other teams about to arrive superstars. So right now, their only option is to sign free agents. In a couple years maybe they can trade for established stars, and a couple years after that some of their own should be coming through the system.

 

I don't think that my pretty simplistic exercise really directly points to that type of solution. Really, I was trying to point more towards the surprisingly small number of FA's that have star-quality seasons. The difference in "develop your own stars" and "trade for guys who are not yet stars but might/will be soon" isn't terribly important, especially in the context of all the other comments that were made in the original post and the ensuing replies.

 

Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky.

 

It's pretty risky (albeit with high rewards as well) Looking at the top 4 free agents the last 5 years (in terms of total contract value) and what their WAR was in year 1:

 

2010 0.2, 2.5, 6.7, 5.7

2009 6.7, 4.1, 1.5, 1.1

2008 5.2, 6.4, 3.5, 2.6

2007 6.3, 2.6, 1.4, 5.7

2006 7.0, 1.7, 3.9, 3.4

 

So some great production, but some huge busts as well. And some of those success stories were short-lived. The 7.0 from 06? Alfonso Soriano. The 6.3 from 2007? A-Rod. The 5.7 from 2007? Posada. On the other side of the coin, the 4th largest contract from 2009 was only 36 million (Figgins) so it hardly counts as a big deal.

 

Here's the full list of players. Whose contracts would you have wanted? Crawford, Werth, Cliff Lee, Beltre, Holliday, Lackey, Bay, Figgins, Teixeira, Sabathia, Burnett, Lowe, Rodriguez, Hunter, Rowand, Posada, Soriano, Zito, Matsuzaka, Carlos Lee. Several that are very good deals, but it's hardly not risky.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

I think his problem was in your thinking that trading "Dempster, Byrd, etc." will result in top prospects playing in MLB next year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky.

 

It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres, Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012.

 

Seriously, lets let 2012 go. Signing one of the best free agents available this offseason could absolutely have helped in competing in 2013 and beyond. That's where my frustration comes from.

 

I didn't understand where your numbers were coming from, as I thought you were only using free agents signed in the last three years. Sorry. Are the chances of signing a free agent that puts up a 5+ WAR really that much less than obtaining somebody in the draft? If I were to guess, trades for soon to be major league stars is the most efficient way to obtain stars. Which suggests that a Garza trade would make sense.

 

The numbers are players who've put up 5+ WAR over the last 3 years, not who's been acquired during that time.

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

 

They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

 

They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.

[Tracer Bullet]

They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.

 

No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable.

[bukie]

How difficult would it be to split "Homegrown" into "Drafted" and "Acquired as a minor leaguer"?

 

It'd take a few minutes, but not that difficult. Here's the list if anyone wants to go through the trouble.

 

Name	Team	Year	WAR	Type
Josh Hamilton	Rangers	2010	8.5	H
Evan Longoria	Rays	2010	7.6	H
Carl Crawford	Rays	2010	7.6	H
Albert Pujols	Cardinals	2010	7.5	H
Joey Votto	Reds	2010	7.3	H
Ryan Zimmerman	Nationals	2010	7.2	H
Adrian Beltre	Red Sox	2010	7	F
Jose Bautista	Blue Jays	2010	6.8	T
Andres Torres	Giants	2010	6.8	F
Matt Holliday	Cardinals	2010	6.7	T
Robinson Cano	Yankees	2010	6.5	H
Rickie Weeks	Brewers	2010	6.5	H
Troy Tulowitzki	Rockies	2010	6.5	H
Carlos Gonzalez	Rockies	2010	6.5	T
Miguel Cabrera	Tigers	2010	6.3	T
Brett Gardner	Yankees	2010	6.1	H
Aubrey Huff	Giants	2010	6	F
Shin-Soo Choo	Indians	2010	5.9	H
Kelly Johnson	Diamondbacks	2010	5.9	F
Joe Mauer	Twins	2010	5.6	H
Angel Pagan	Mets	2010	5.5	T
Chase Utley	Phillies	2010	5.4	H
Jay Bruce	Reds	2010	5.4	H
Jayson Werth	Phillies	2010	5.3	F
Adrian Gonzalez	Padres	2010	5.2	T
Stephen Drew	Diamondbacks	2010	5.1	H
Daric Barton	Athletics	2010	5.1	H
Jason Heyward	Braves	2010	5.1	H
Cliff Lee	- - -	2010	7.2	T
Roy Halladay	Phillies	2010	6.6	T
Ubaldo Jimenez	Rockies	2010	6.4	H
Justin Verlander	Tigers	2010	6.4	H
Josh Johnson	Marlins	2010	6.3	H
Felix Hernandez	Mariners	2010	6.2	H
Adam Wainwright	Cardinals	2010	6.1	H
Francisco Liriano	Twins	2010	6	H
Jered Weaver	Angels	2010	5.8	H
Jon Lester	Red Sox	2010	5.7	H
CC Sabathia	Yankees	2010	5.2	F
Zack Greinke	Royals	2010	5.1	H
Jacoby Ellsbury	Red Sox	2011	9.4	H
Matt Kemp	Dodgers	2011	8.7	H
Jose Bautista	Blue Jays	2011	8.3	T
Dustin Pedroia	Red Sox	2011	8	H
Ryan Braun	Brewers	2011	7.8	H
Ian Kinsler	Rangers	2011	7.7	H
Miguel Cabrera	Tigers	2011	7.3	T
Curtis Granderson	Yankees	2011	7	T
Alex Gordon	Royals	2011	6.9	H
Joey Votto	Reds	2011	6.9	H
Ben Zobrist	Rays	2011	6.6	H
Adrian Gonzalez	Red Sox	2011	6.6	T
Justin Upton	Diamondbacks	2011	6.4	H
Troy Tulowitzki	Rockies	2011	6.3	H
Jose Reyes	Mets	2011	6.2	H
Evan Longoria	Rays	2011	6.1	H
Brandon Phillips	Reds	2011	6	T
Shane Victorino	Phillies	2011	5.9	H
Howie Kendrick	Angels	2011	5.8	H
Adrian Beltre	Rangers	2011	5.7	F
Andrew McCutchen	Pirates	2011	5.7	H
Robinson Cano	Yankees	2011	5.6	H
Alex Avila	Tigers	2011	5.5	H
Prince Fielder	Brewers	2011	5.5	H
Jhonny Peralta	Tigers	2011	5.2	T
Brett Gardner	Yankees	2011	5.1	H
Albert Pujols	Cardinals	2011	5.1	H
Matt Holliday	Cardinals	2011	5	T
Lance Berkman	Cardinals	2011	5	F
Roy Halladay	Phillies	2011	8.2	T
CC Sabathia	Yankees	2011	7.1	F
Justin Verlander	Tigers	2011	7	H
Clayton Kershaw	Dodgers	2011	6.8	H
Cliff Lee	Phillies	2011	6.7	F
Dan Haren	Angels	2011	6.4	T
C.J. Wilson	Rangers	2011	5.9	H
Jered Weaver	Angels	2011	5.6	H
Doug Fister	- - -	2011	5.6	T
Felix Hernandez	Mariners	2011	5.5	H
Madison Bumgarner	Giants	2011	5.5	H
Matt Cain	Giants	2011	5.2	H
Matt Garza	Cubs	2011	5	T
Ian Kennedy	Diamondbacks	2011	5	T
Chris Carpenter	Cardinals	2011	5	F
Albert Pujols	Cardinals	2009	9	H
Ben Zobrist	Rays	2009	8.7	H
Chase Utley	Phillies	2009	8.2	H
Joe Mauer	Twins	2009	7.9	H
Evan Longoria	Rays	2009	7.6	H
Hanley Ramirez	Marlins	2009	7.4	H
Ryan Zimmerman	Nationals	2009	7.3	H
Derek Jeter	Yankees	2009	7.1	H
Chone Figgins	Angels	2009	6.9	H
Prince Fielder	Brewers	2009	6.4	H
Franklin Gutierrez	Mariners	2009	6.3	T
Adrian Gonzalez	Padres	2009	6.2	T
Carl Crawford	Rays	2009	5.9	H
Kevin Youkilis	Red Sox	2009	5.9	H
Troy Tulowitzki	Rockies	2009	5.7	H
Matt Holliday	- - -	2009	5.6	T
Pablo Sandoval	Giants	2009	5.5	H
Jason Bartlett	Rays	2009	5.5	F
Ichiro Suzuki	Mariners	2009	5.4	F
Miguel Cabrera	Tigers	2009	5.3	T
Derrek Lee	Cubs	2009	5.3	T
Matt Kemp	Dodgers	2009	5.2	H
Nyjer Morgan	- - -	2009	5.2	T
Mark Teixeira	Yankees	2009	5.2	F
Shin-Soo Choo	Indians	2009	5.1	H
Jayson Werth	Phillies	2009	5	F
Dustin Pedroia	Red Sox	2009	5	H
Zack Greinke	Royals	2009	9.3	H
Justin Verlander	Tigers	2009	8.3	H
Tim Lincecum	Giants	2009	8	H
Roy Halladay	Blue Jays	2009	7.4	H
Felix Hernandez	Mariners	2009	6.8	H
Cliff Lee	- - -	2009	6.6	T
Javier Vazquez	Braves	2009	6.5	T
CC Sabathia	Yankees	2009	6.4	F
Jon Lester	Red Sox	2009	6.4	H
Dan Haren	Diamondbacks	2009	6.1	T
Ubaldo Jimenez	Rockies	2009	5.9	H
Adam Wainwright	Cardinals	2009	5.7	H
Josh Johnson	Marlins	2009	5.6	H
Chris Carpenter	Cardinals	2009	5.6	F
Josh Beckett	Red Sox	2009	5.5	T

 

From that list, of the 78 seasons of homegrown players, 69 were drafted/signed internationally, and just 9 seasons from 6 players via minor league trade:

 

- Daric Barton (traded from Cards with Dan Haren to A's for Mark Mulder)

- Shin-Soo Choo (traded from Mariners to Indians for Ben Broussard)

- Chone Figgins (traded from Rockies to Angels for Kimera Bartee)

- Hanley Ramirez (traded from Red Sox to Marlins in Josh Beckett deal)

- Adam Wainwright (traded from Braves to Cards for JD Drew)

- Ben Zobrist (traded from Astros to Rays for Aubrey Huff)

 

So, the vast majority of star players have been acquired through the draft or international signings.

[SouthSideRyan]

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

 

They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.

 

No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable.

 

We're not getting Travis Wood for Ryan Dempster, Marlon Byrd, or Joey Etcetera.

Edited January 5, 2012 by SouthSideRyan

[pccubfan]

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

 

They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example.

 

The Marshall trade was a good trade but Marshall was also our third best asset. It's going to take players a lot better than Wood for this team to be competitive in 2013. That's the point, the Cubs are not going to be able to compete even in 2013 without stepping into the free agency market and I'm not sure why that process wasn't begun this offseason.

[Tracer Bullet]

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

 

They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.

 

No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable.

 

We're not getting Travis Wood for Dempster, Marlon Byrd, or Joey Etcetera.

 

Joey Etcetera put up some solid #s last year and he's an asset to any clubhouse.

[Tracer Bullet]

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

 

They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.

 

No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable.

 

We're not getting Travis Wood for Ryan Dempster, Marlon Byrd, or Joey Etcetera.

 

And you don't have to get Travis Wood. Volstad may have good value next year too. At any rate, his value will be higher than Z's.

 

Acquire assets with value beyond 2012 and use them in 2013+ or turn them into even better players. It's exactly what we needed.

[sneakypower]

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it would be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

 

Yeah, no offense, gr, but that seems incredibly backwards.

in a microcosm of this point, we traded a reliever that might tangibly be worth 4-5 wins, for two players not expected to contribute this year (and Travis Wood) but are a very safe bet to be productive down the road

 

also, if the dichotomy is to shell out a large contract for a now-productive but declining player vs. gambling on a young player (specifically, Ramirez vs. Stewart), it's easy to see where our success this year is in direct conflict with future success

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

 

They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example.

 

The Marshall trade was a good trade but Marshall was also our third best asset. It's going to take players a lot better than Wood for this team to be competitive in 2013. That's the point, the Cubs are not going to be able to compete even in 2013 without stepping into the free agency market and I'm not sure why that process wasn't begun this offseason.

 

Bc we couldn't sign Pujols, Wilson (took less money to play in LA), and the Cubans (who I hope we do sign). The Cubs just couldn't sign enough studs to make the team truly competitive in 2012. We had a lot of mediocre talent that was gone after 2012, one or two valuable assets that were signed thru 2012, and a couple of bad contracts that expire not too long after 2012.

 

If we turn all of that into assets that have value in 2013 and later, we can use that value in 2013 or trade it before 2013 for even more valuable assets. I love that strategy.

 

There are some moves I don't understand. Reed Johnson comes to mind. But if paying him a million bucks keeps BJax in the minors for 2012, that's probably a good thing. We're already wasting a lot of Castro's talent so why waste more? DeJesus makes sense if he's a guy we can flip at the deadline for 2013 value.

 

There's a method here. And I like it.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

[pccubfan]

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

 

They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example.

 

The Marshall trade was a good trade but Marshall was also our third best asset. It's going to take players a lot better than Wood for this team to be competitive in 2013. That's the point, the Cubs are not going to be able to compete even in 2013 without stepping into the free agency market and I'm not sure why that process wasn't begun this offseason.

 

Bc we couldn't sign Pujols, Wilson (took less money to play in LA), and the Cubans (who I hope we do sign). The Cubs just couldn't sign enough studs to make the team truly competitive in 2012. We had a lot of mediocre talent that was gone after 2012, one or two valuable assets that were signed thru 2012, and a couple of bad contracts that expire not too long after 2012.

 

If we turn all of that into assets that have value in 2013 and later, we can use that value in 2013 or trade it before 2013 for even more valuable assets. I love that strategy.

 

There are some moves I don't understand. Reed Johnson comes to mind. But if paying him a million bucks keeps BJax in the minors for 2012, that's probably a good thing. We're already wasting a lot of Castro's talent so why waste more? DeJesus makes sense if he's a guy we can flip at the deadline for 2013 value.

 

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

Again, why does signing a Pujols or a Fielder have to be about competing in 2012. They should both be productive beyond 2012. If the Cubs sign Fielder and one of the Cubans this offseason, then this offseason can be classified as a success in my mind, even if they don't compete in 2012.

[Tracer Bullet]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

[Tracer Bullet]

Again, why does signing a Pujols or a Fielder have to be about competing in 2012. They should both be productive beyond 2012. If the Cubs sign Fielder and one of the Cubans this offseason, then this offseason can be classified as a success in my mind, even if they don't compete in 2012.

 

Either Theo didn't think Pujols was worth what he was asking (likely true) or Pujols didn't want to sign here (also possible). I don't know if they'll sign Fielder or not. But the off season can be a success without signing Fielder, esp if they sign the Cubans.

 

I haven't said signing these guys is only about competing in 2012. I've said signing enough of them wasn't possible either bc the asking price was too high it they plain wanted to sign somewhere else.

[pccubfan]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

 

There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

 

There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this.

 

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

[Tracer Bullet]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

 

There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this.

 

There is something wrong with it when not trading assets that have no value after 2012 hurts the team in later years. Keeping mediocre players to hope for 85 wins in 2012 makes no sense when those players can't help the team in 2013 when there's a better chance at winning.

[davearm2]

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

 

They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.

I'm not suggesting that the guys acquired in these trades will be the only moves made, and that all of the improvement would have to be provided by them.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

 

Are you kidding me with that garbage?

 

80-85 while in the process of restructuring the organization is a perfectly respectable season. My problem with Hendry is that 81 was the average over a decade.

 

80-85 three years into a rebuilding wouldn't be the least bit impressive.

[XZero771679666304]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

I take some issue with the implication that 2012 has been "ignored". Just because the team didn't land guys (to this point) doesn't mean they weren't in to some degree. If they offered Pujols a shorter, smarter deal, that is an attempt. The fact that the Angels and Marlins pushed the price into the stupid range doesn't mean Theo and Jed ignored him.

 

Same with Darvish. Texas blew the other bids (including that of the "favorite" Jays) out of the water, by most accounts. Does that mean Jed and Theo didn't even try?

 

And how do we know the price for Headley wasn't unreasonable? And Aramis is the one who declined his part. Should they have given him 3 years just to salvage 2012?

 

And Fielder and the Cubans are still out there, still more dominoes to fall. It's fairly obvious at this point that 2012 is likely to be an ugly rebuilding year, but I don't think for a second the FO simply said "[expletive] 2012, we're blowing this thing up."

 

Being measured =/= ignoring.

[jersey cubs fan]

Being measured =/= ignoring.

 

Taking a look =/= addressing the needs.

[XZero771679666304]

Being measured =/= ignoring.

 

Taking a look =/= addressing the needs.

 

They've valued their long term needs above their short term needs, just as they said they would (and should).

 

The only "miss" I have reservation about (to this point) is Darvish.