2013

[XZero771679666304]

[Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

 

They'd probably say no.

 

The Marlins absolutely would (or at least should). They weren't all that close, their season has been a disaster, and their signings disappointing. Adding those players was a transparent attempt to put butts in the new seats, and it didn't even succeed in that.

 

I can't argue with the way the Angels went about things (though I still cringe at that Pujols contract, which is gonna look uglier in a couple years). This is because they had a pretty nice group of players on the roster already. Pujols and Wilson rounded out the team. Pujols and Wilson on the Cubs would have been band-aids on bullet wounds.

 

And then the band-aids would fall off after 162 games.

 

This team with Pujols and Wilson and even Cespedes would still be well under .500.

[Cubswin11]

ESPN did and update on their future rankings for MLB organizations. If someone has insider can you post what they have to say, or summize what they have to say about the Cubs. Figured this is a good thread for that type of conversation and didn't feel it needed and whole new thread. Thanks.

[SouthSideRyan]

[Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

 

They'd probably say no.

 

The Marlins absolutely would (or at least should). They weren't all that close, their season has been a disaster, and their signings disappointing. Adding those players was a transparent attempt to put butts in the new seats, and it didn't even succeed in that.

 

I can't argue with the way the Angels went about things (though I still cringe at that Pujols contract, which is gonna look uglier in a couple years). This is because they had a pretty nice group of players on the roster already. Pujols and Wilson rounded out the team. Pujols and Wilson on the Cubs would have been band-aids on bullet wounds.

 

And then the band-aids would fall off after 162 games.

 

This team with Pujols and Wilson and even Cespedes would still be well under .500.

 

And then MLB would fold.

[sneakypower]

is this even a real argument?

 

if we barely scraped out a .500 season with the $400M we handed out to those guys, where do we go from here? pick up a few more high-profile FAs again this offseason to fill all the holes? is that even a remotely feasible option?

 

i guess i could understand such desperate impatience if you're 85 years old right now

[Cubswin11]

is this even a real argument?

 

if we barely scraped out a .500 season with the $300M we handed out to those guys, where do we go from here? pick up a few more high-profile FAs again this offseason to fill all the holes? is that even a remotely feasible option?

 

i guess i could understand such desperate impatience if you're 85 years old right now

You're right, we should really get Fred's input on this

[SouthSideRyan]

is this even a real argument?

 

if we barely scraped out a .500 season with the $400M we handed out to those guys, where do we go from here? pick up a few more high-profile FAs again this offseason to fill all the holes? is that even a remotely feasible option?

 

i guess i could understand such desperate impatience if you're 85 years old right now

 

Would our farm system be any worse right now if we signed free agents this past offseason? Would our 2013 team be better?

[XZero771679666304]

And then MLB would fold.

 

 

And the Cubs would still suck next year, and by the time they were good again, Pujols would be further into what is clearly his decline phase, and the Cubs would be paying him a crapton of money to not be as good as Rizzo.

 

Put it this way, even if you add 3 or even 4 of Pujols, Wilson, Fielder, Darvish and Cespedes, not only would the Cubs still not be contenders this year, but probably not next year, either. That is unless Marshall, Cashner and Ramirez were retained (and they did try and keep ARam for 2012). If you take cumulative WAR of the players many people wanted signed and subtract the WAR of those they would have ostensibly replaced from that number, it becomes clear just what a mess Theo and Jed inherited and it helps you understand why they've taken the route they did. The improvement, both this year and next, would have been marginal at best. If we're looking beyond 2013, I'll take my chances with the young talent rather than wishing Theo/Jed had doled out ill-advised, massive contracts to older players. Going into the last offseason, the Cubs were not in the same position a team like the Angels were.

 

I would like to have signed Cespedes and Darvish, but c'est la vie.

[Backtobanks]

did backtobanks change his name to southsideryan

 

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great.

 

 

Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

 

I totally understand what a farm system does. Perhaps you don't understand the odds of us having "an excess of bigtime prospects". Right now we have an excess of bigtime prospect's names. Until our ML prospects and our 19-20 year old prospects prove something at their respective levels, we aren't going to be able to trade for those young, cost controlled guys. As for the "fictional trade scenario", why don't you look at how many other posters have suggested trading Vitters or Jackson for some young, cost-controlled, and productive player.

 

 

Yes, as I suspected, you have NO CLUE. The guys in our system now are not nearly enough to do anything with, as far as what I'm talking about. You need another year or two's worth of high impact guys before you have enough to bother attempting what I think the plan is. And guess what? It's not the current admin's fault as to why our farm system wasn't able to do that immediately for them. The last year was the only year they spent big in a time when you could and should have been doing it all the time. This takes time and as I just outlined, your idea of having a decent team on the field at all times hurts the longterm idea of having a great one at some point. As for trading Brett or Vitters? I'm actually one of the posters that's mentioned it. Unfortunately, either or both would have to really come on strong as hell the rest of the season in order to bother justifying it, because neither is worth anything close to being able to get a true young difference maker as the lead piece at this exact moment. So you rpobably work with them and hope they become a guy that can be thought of as a lead trade piece or a longterm starter, but right now, neither guy is either option.

 

So you are in favor of tanking another year or two to get enough "high impact guys" in the farm system? So your plan is 3 years of lousy baseball to accumulate draft choices so we can then hope all of these prospects reach their potential and we can use them at the ML level or trade for young cost-controlled players? Of course that's dependent on most prospects reaching their potential and hoping nobody gets a career threatening injury. I guess you're much more patient than I am.

[davell]

is this even a real argument?

 

if we barely scraped out a .500 season with the $400M we handed out to those guys, where do we go from here? pick up a few more high-profile FAs again this offseason to fill all the holes? is that even a remotely feasible option?

 

i guess i could understand such desperate impatience if you're 85 years old right now

 

Would our farm system be any worse right now if we signed free agents this past offseason? Would our 2013 team be better?

Well, if we had went and signed Pujols, Wilson, and Cespedes, we'd not have Underwood or McNeil in our system. Two very high upside pitchers. We'd have an extra 50 mill added to our payroll. We'd finish with 75-80 wins. Dropping our draft pisitioning 12-15 spots, same with IFA's. So yes, your system would have been affected and for what? Wins that didn't get you into the playoffs or even close, in all likelihood.

[XZero771679666304]

is this even a real argument?

 

if we barely scraped out a .500 season with the $400M we handed out to those guys, where do we go from here? pick up a few more high-profile FAs again this offseason to fill all the holes? is that even a remotely feasible option?

 

i guess i could understand such desperate impatience if you're 85 years old right now

 

Would our farm system be any worse right now if we signed free agents this past offseason? Would our 2013 team be better?

Well, if we had went and signed Pujols, Wilson, and Cespedes, we'd not have Underwood or McNeil in our system. Two very high upside pitchers. We'd have an extra 50 mill added to our payroll. We'd finish with 75-80 wins. Dropping our draft pisitioning 12-15 spots, same with IFA's. So yes, your system would have been affected and for what? Wins that didn't get you into the playoffs or even close, in all likelihood.

 

But hey, we'd be slightly less awful next year.

[WrigleyField 22]

ESPN did and update on their future rankings for MLB organizations. If someone has insider can you post what they have to say, or summize what they have to say about the Cubs. Figured this is a good thread for that type of conversation and didn't feel it needed and whole new thread. Thanks.

16. Chicago Cubs

The Overview No reasonable Cubs fan expected a turnaround this summer, but it was a frustrating first year for the new regime. The Ryan Dempster trade talks became something of a debacle when the pitcher blocked deals, and then Matt Garza's injury wrecked his trade value. But the club has built a little positive momentum recently as it works out the final details of a long-term deal with shortstop Starlin Castro. -- Buster Olney

 

The Dilemma The Cubs' biggest dilemma this offseason will be how to maximize trade return for Garza, Bryan LaHair and Alfonso Soriano (if, in fact, the Cubs can move him). The Cubs were busy in their first year under Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer. They traded for Anthony Rizzo, drafted Albert Almora with their first pick in the 2012 draft, signed Cuban outfielder Jorge Soler and traded Dempster and Paul Maholm at the deadline. Unfortunately for Chicago, Garza will miss the rest of the season with a sore elbow, which means he won't be able to boost his trade value down the stretch. -- Jim Bowden

 

The System The Cubs have added an enormous amount of talent since last offseason, including Cuban outfielder Soler, a toolsy athlete with great bat speed; right-hander Arodys Vizcaino, acquired from Atlanta after he had season-ending elbow surgery; and prep center fielder Almora, a plus defender with great feel to hit. -- Keith Law

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[C.C.]

So I guess we have to hope and pray that they draft some studs in the next two years. If not shits gonna turn on the FO.

[sneakypower]

is this even a real argument?

 

if we barely scraped out a .500 season with the $400M we handed out to those guys, where do we go from here? pick up a few more high-profile FAs again this offseason to fill all the holes? is that even a remotely feasible option?

 

i guess i could understand such desperate impatience if you're 85 years old right now

 

Would our farm system be any worse right now if we signed free agents this past offseason? Would our 2013 team be better?

absolutely, we would have made a misguided attempt at contention and kept Marshall, Dempster, Cashner, Maholm, etc. in most likely a completely futile endeavor (trying to compete this year)*

 

Pujols, Wilson, Ramirez...their primes are all behind them and they are likely to decline going forward; they'd make us worse next year and beyond relative to the younger, more appropriate, more intelligent FA signings we're likely to make

 

*edit: would we also have had the funds remaining available to sign Soler?

Edited August 24, 2012 by sneakypower

[sneakypower]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

 

Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija.

[WrigleyField 22]

I can see that we'll hold off trading prospects, but being active in free agency can help us for the future as well. As long as they're not blocking a ready prospect, they'll help us be less worse now and if we're lucky they'll be another Maholm, or even better a guy who will continue to contribute when we are contenders.

 

Its unrealistic that we'll suck for a few years and then flip a switch to get good. You have to add pieces along the way and then retain them in a cost effective manner. Yea, you'll be more stingy when you aren't as close, but that doesn't mean you won't look to upgrade the roster in the short term.

 

We're at the point where we really only have one final piece that can net us a significant prospect package. Maybe 2 if you think DeJesus can put up a big season and sell high. But both of those guys could contribute to a winning team within two-three years.

 

I think this off season will look much more dual front- like. Building our farm at this point will just come down to drafting and development. And the extra 5 or whatever draft slots/budget won't be worth forgoing upgrades to the big league club.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sneakypower]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

 

Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija.

hindsight BS

 

a FA-to-be middle reliever

a guy with a career 79 OPS+

a 35yo FA-to-be coming off a 4.80 ERA season

a pitcher coming off a shoulder injury who'd still never topped 100 IP

a wild reliever who'd never even produced a 4.25 xFIP

 

none of these were assets with significant value at the beginning of the year

[C.C.]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

 

Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija.

hindsight BS

 

a FA-to-be middle reliever

a guy with a career 79 OPS+

a 35yo FA-to-be coming off a 4.80 ERA season

a pitcher coming off a shoulder injury who'd still never topped 100 IP

a wild reliever who'd never even produced a 4.25 xFIP

 

none of these were assets with significant value at the beginning of the year

 

What does that matter? They weren't of significant value at the beginning of the year so they don't count as Hendry's guys?

[Cubswin11]

ESPN did and update on their future rankings for MLB organizations. If someone has insider can you post what they have to say, or summize what they have to say about the Cubs. Figured this is a good thread for that type of conversation and didn't feel it needed and whole new thread. Thanks.

16. Chicago Cubs

The Overview No reasonable Cubs fan expected a turnaround this summer, but it was a frustrating first year for the new regime. The Ryan Dempster trade talks became something of a debacle when the pitcher blocked deals, and then Matt Garza's injury wrecked his trade value. But the club has built a little positive momentum recently as it works out the final details of a long-term deal with shortstop Starlin Castro. -- Buster Olney

 

The Dilemma The Cubs' biggest dilemma this offseason will be how to maximize trade return for Garza, Bryan LaHair and Alfonso Soriano (if, in fact, the Cubs can move him). The Cubs were busy in their first year under Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer. They traded for Anthony Rizzo, drafted Albert Almora with their first pick in the 2012 draft, signed Cuban outfielder Jorge Soler and traded Dempster and Paul Maholm at the deadline. Unfortunately for Chicago, Garza will miss the rest of the season with a sore elbow, which means he won't be able to boost his trade value down the stretch. -- Jim Bowden

 

The System The Cubs have added an enormous amount of talent since last offseason, including Cuban outfielder Soler, a toolsy athlete with great bat speed; right-hander Arodys Vizcaino, acquired from Atlanta after he had season-ending elbow surgery; and prep center fielder Almora, a plus defender with great feel to hit. -- Keith Law

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks

[sneakypower]

What does that matter? They weren't of significant value at the beginning of the year so they don't count as Hendry's guys?

(when i said he left them nothing, i assumed it was easily understood that meant nothing of value...he obviously left him some players with which to actually physically field a team, and not that he made off with all his players like some dastardly bandit)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

 

Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija.

hindsight BS

 

a FA-to-be middle reliever

a guy with a career 79 OPS+

a 35yo FA-to-be coming off a 4.80 ERA season

a pitcher coming off a shoulder injury who'd still never topped 100 IP

a wild reliever who'd never even produced a 4.25 xFIP

 

none of these were assets with significant value at the beginning of the year

 

So if we assume that none of the players we had under Hendry could ever improve from the worst possible way you could spin them, even the young ones, then I guess it's fair to say that Epstein was left with nothing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What does that matter? They weren't of significant value at the beginning of the year so they don't count as Hendry's guys?

(when i said he left them nothing, i assumed it was easily understood that meant nothing of value...he obviously left him some players with which to actually physically field a team, and not that he made off with all his players like some dastardly bandit)

 

So what you are saying is that Cashner and Marshall had no value whatsoever, but Epstein used his magic Jedi mind tricks to turn them into valuable assets?

[C.C.]

What does that matter? They weren't of significant value at the beginning of the year so they don't count as Hendry's guys?

(when i said he left them nothing, i assumed it was easily understood that meant nothing of value...he obviously left him some players with which to actually physically field a team, and not that he made off with all his players like some dastardly bandit)

 

But then why do discredit what Kyle wrote? Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija. had\have value.

[C.C.]

What does that matter? They weren't of significant value at the beginning of the year so they don't count as Hendry's guys?

(when i said he left them nothing, i assumed it was easily understood that meant nothing of value...he obviously left him some players with which to actually physically field a team, and not that he made off with all his players like some dastardly bandit)

 

So what you are saying is that Cashner and Marshall had no value whatsoever, but Epstein used his magic Jedi mind tricks to turn them into valuable assets?

 

LOL! Right!

[sneakypower]

he left Theo & co with a bunch of penny stocks- that some have gained in value (Dempster fluking into a sub-3 ERA, or Barney's fielding stats jumping likely as a result of positioning) isn't really a huge credit to Hendry

 

So what you are saying is that Cashner and Marshall had no value whatsoever, but Epstein used his magic Jedi mind tricks to turn them into valuable assets?

yes, that's basically what i'm saying

 

by this same absurd twisted logic, we know Larry Andersen was simply oozing with trade value when the Red Sox dealt him