2013

[XZero771679666304]

 

If we don't sign any free agents I can't see us being any better next year. We might even be worse.

 

If we take the same approach as last year, this team is Astros-level bad in 2013.

 

No.

 

Explain.

 

Really?

 

The Cubs have a superior roster to the Astros right now. That roster is devoid of talent, we at least have some. And if Theo and Jed use the same tactic as last year, they'll at least add something (probably pitching, a Paul Maholm type, or two).

 

The Cubs may be bad in 2013, but they're not going to be 2011/12 Astros bad. That's just spaz talk.

[Sammys Boombox]

Doesn't deserve it's own thread. Not really on topic here, but whatever. I think somebody said something somewhere in this thread about declining fan support.

 

Received this in my email today:

 

We are pleased to announce an exclusive Chicago Cubs Season Ticket Holder offer to enjoy a game in the Budweiser Patio at a reduced rate. We have reserved a limited number of tickets for Cubs Season Ticket Holders in the Budweiser Patio for the Sunday, September 2 game vs. the San Francisco Giants at 1:20 p.m.

 

Tickets in the Budweiser Patio for this game are normally $215, but through this exclusive Season Ticket Holder offer, you can reserve up to eight tickets for $75* per ticket. Your ticket gives you access to our new Budweiser Patio with unlimited food and beverage.

 

Please use your unique one-time use password provided below and click on the link to reserve your spot(s) in the Budweiser Patio for Sunday, September 2. Act quickly, as all spots will be sold on a first-come, first-served basis.

 

We look forward to seeing you on September 2.

 

1. THEY COST THAT MUCH?!

2. It really doesn't seem that awesome.

 

Food and beverage included:

- Beer and non-alcoholic drinks

- Ballpark food and snacks

 

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ticketing/premier/dailysuite.jsp

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs may be bad in 2013, but they're not going to be 2011/12 Astros bad. That's just spaz talk.

 

They've got four players in their lineup right now with a better OPS than .750. There's a very decent chance the 2013 Cubs don't match that if they don't make a significant effort to acquire immediate impact players.

[dew1679666265]

Darvish: Would have taken $100m plus to acquire him the FO might have had a bad taste in their mouth after Dice-K. He hasn't been all that great this year. Previously had a lot of innings on his arm already.

 

3.74 FIP, 3.81 xFIP, 10.84 K/9, 46.4 GB%

 

The only thing on his statline that really jumps out as bad is his BB/9 (an exceptionally abysmal 4.88). He's been pretty good this year and has a chance to be even better if you can get those walks under control.

[Guest]

The Cubs may be bad in 2013, but they're not going to be 2011/12 Astros bad. That's just spaz talk.

 

They've got four players in their lineup right now with a better OPS than .750. There's a very decent chance the 2013 Cubs don't match that if they don't make a significant effort to acquire immediate impact players.

 

That's pretty much league average. There's 124 guys in MLB with 250 PA and a > .750 OPS.

[davell]

Long ass post coming, hope it keeps people reading somehow......But I'm going to at least attempt to show what the team looks like if we HAD gone about things differently and tried contending, to show the differences of where we'd be after just one or two seasons and then you can look and see which scenario you'd rather be in.

 

I'm going to use Darvish and Fielder as the guys we added, for arguments sake here, because they honestly seem like the guys the board wanted the most and it also makes my point a bit harder to make than if I used Pujols and Wilson.

 

If we had signed those 2(Darvish and Fielder) it would have changed our outlook on Marshall as well and in all likelihood, we would have given him a new deal. I'll assume 3/16, just as he received. We probably would have locked in Garza as well and I'll hit that one in the middle and figure 5/85, which seems fair. Let's assume the rest stayed the same though.

 

C Soto 4.3

1B Fielder 23(same contract he got with Detroit, 24 for each year after 2014)

2B Barney .5

SS Castro .5

3B Stewart 2.3

LF Soriano 18

CF Byrd 6.5

RF DeJesus 4.25

 

Total 59.85, plus Pena's deferred money and backups, I'll add 10 mill so it equals 69.85

 

SP Dempster 15

Garza 9.5

Darvish 5.5 plus 11 per year if I'm assuming we'd count the posting fee as salary related against payroll, which I think seems fair. Assuming we paid 55 mill fee to make it even here. 16.5

Volstad

Maholm 4.5

 

Total of 45.5 mill here plus the Zambrano trade which netted Volstad to be a 6th starter/bullpen arm in this case brings the total salary outlay to 63.5 mill for starting pitching and 133.35 total so far.

 

Bullpen has Marmol, Cashner, Samardzija(who wouldn't have gotten a shot at starting) Marshall, Russell and 3 others to be safe. That's 13.4 mill plus the other 3 guys, who I'll say are a mill apiece bringing the total to 16.4 mill and a 149.75 total salary heading into the season, still not counting us adding Soler and Concepcion, for the dual fronts thing, which brings it to 154.25 as a season opening payroll.

 

That team doesn't make the playoffs. Not even close. Is it close enough though to where it makes them go for it, by adding a SP when Harza goes down? Or is it close enough to where it makes them hold tight and keeps them from dealing away? No clue, but what it definitely does, is it puts you in that 70-75 win area for the upcoming season.

 

So, you've got a middle of the road draft allotment and a middle of the road IFA budget, to go along with a middle of the road farm system and a middle of the road major league team. So, how much flexibility do you have moving forward?

 

C

1B Fielder 23

2B Barney .5

SS Castro 2.5(based on 7/60 rumored deal)

3B

LF Soriano 18

CF

RF DeJesus 4.25

 

You've got 48.25 committed, with holes at C, 3B, and CF and a need to try and improve quicker. Again, add 5 mill for backups here and you're at 53.25.

 

SP Darvish 9.5 plus 11 posting is 20.5

Garza 17 if each year is even in new deal

Maholm 6.5

sp

SP

 

That's 44 committed to 3 guys and you have 2 holes. Not to mention, you need 2 TOR pitchers to be a juggernaut still, because Darvish hasn't proved he is yet and Garza's a question mark right now himself)

 

Bullpen would have Marmol at 9.8 and Marshall at 4.5, plus Cashner, a raise for Shark, but I'll say 3 mill because he's in the pen and maybe Russell gets a mill in arb. Those 5 are 18.8 mill, plus the Soler/Concepcion signings brings us to a total of......

 

116.05. And you've got holes at C, 3B, CF, SP, SP and a probable payroll limit of around 150 mill. You've got this draft class, which helped somewhat, but the system is still average at best currently and now you're looking at averpicks and IFA budgets. You've got plenty of holes to fill though and you need to fill some of them with bigtime players that maybe don't cost a bunch, so my guess is Baez would be among those dealt away this offseason. Because you've got a complete ASS of a FA class to choose from.

 

What this does though, is hopefully show how different the direction COULD have been here. Because if we HAD added Fielder and darvish, the general thought here was we would have been borderling contenders. But moves like that, makes you want to keep others as well, so extending Garza and Marshall seemed like the good thing to do in this case and definitely would have been done by the prior administration.. At any rate, that one year and you're locked into quite a bit of money, you still have quite a few holes to fill, you don't have a good farm system and the idea it's going to get better because we're drafting geniuses is all we have to hope for there.

 

Sure, they could take a pause and not sign guys from this FA class and wind up with another 75ish win team for 2013 and wait and try to pick and choose because they already have certain pieces in place. But, you're hindered by the amount of money THOSE pieces are and you have to be much pickier in the process.

 

So what's the use here of adding those type guys last offseason? Seriously? To win 75 games and be "respectable". For what? Because you're probably doing it again the folowing year as well, unless you're just going to put yourself all in with a Greinke and Hamilton addition and backload the [expletive] out of them. Then watch those 2 do exactly what we'd all bitch about in the process of signing them anyway. Hamilton relapses and Greinke gets scared of his shadow. And we're done. 150 mill plus committed basically, if you went that route.

 

The bottom line is we were going to be bad in 2012 and 2013 as well. Possibly longer, depending on how things fall, but it's certainly TBD right now. At any rate, how can anyone not like the idea of having MUCH more payroll flexibility, better draft allotments and IFA budgets, and younger guys getting a chance to see if they CAN become a legit piece to the puzzle, rather than another average ass team that also has very little hope of actually making the playoffs in 2013 even and not nearly the ability to make major trades or signings moving forward?

 

I trust our guys and I'm glad as hell they didn't box themselves in, because it would have been easy to do, if we made big splashes last offseason.

[SouthSideRyan]

So what's the use here of adding those type guys last offseason? Seriously? To win 75 games and be "respectable". For what?

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3IRvH28k7Dk/TyF-P-d9TWI/AAAAAAAAJa8/ldrT5Mg84zY/s1600/why@.jpg

[XZero771679666304]

The Cubs may be bad in 2013, but they're not going to be 2011/12 Astros bad. That's just spaz talk.

 

They've got four players in their lineup right now with a better OPS than .750. There's a very decent chance the 2013 Cubs don't match that if they don't make a significant effort to acquire immediate impact players.

 

The Cubs don't need to add impact players for 2013 to avoid being as bad as the 2012 Astros.

 

Houston has two qualified position players, one with a .777 OPS and another with a .681. The other Astros with .750+ OPS' have either been injured or are part time players.

[SouthSideRyan]

If we all agree that those signings wouldn't put the Cubs into contention 2012, why does it have to be assumed that stuff like Marshall and Garza would be extended and Samardzija and Cashner would be tethered to the bullpen? Why couldn't they sign FAs AND build the farm system with trades?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Sorry, but I'm not buying the whole "If we added X, Y and Z, we'd still only have 75 wins." We don't know that. There are too many things that go into a major-league season to think you can just swap a few WARs in and out and confidently say where we'd have ended up.

 

There are several teams fighting for playoff spots right now that were supposed to be 75-win teams. The 2011 Cardinals looked like a 75-win team at times last year.

 

The whole "either we have a juggernaut team or every win is wasted" idea is silly. You might as well say "if we don't win the World Series, we might as well have been last for draft position." Every season is a chance to win, every chance to win is sacred. We took a dump all over this sacred chance to win for vague, uncertain returns.

[Magnetic Curses]

this is [expletive] awful

[davell]

If we all agree that those signings wouldn't put the Cubs into contention 2012, why does it have to be assumed that stuff like Marshall and Garza would be extended and Samardzija and Cashner would be tethered to the bullpen? Why couldn't they sign FAs AND build the farm system with trades?

 

Fine, not that I agree, but again, now you've got 3 holes in the rotation and a solid guy that's gone from your pen. So where are getting them from? and even if it frees up 22ish mill, you've still got tons of holes and now you've added 2 more. You're willing to not make the playoffs in both 2012 and 2013 evidently, but winning more games in that timeframe means something. Why? Seriously, I have no idea why someone wants to spend and limit themselves in the future when it's not really helping the present. There's always guys to sign and there'e always guys to trade for. Why do it now before we even give ourselves a legit chance to develop enough collateral to where it doesn't kill the system just to make a Matt Garza trade, for instance.

[davell]

I just added the two youngest bigtime FA out there last offseason to our team. It doesn't matter whether or not garza and Marshall are extended or not in this scenario. But it shows you how many holes we STILL would have had. And not nearly the same amount of money available to address them and the class of FA for 2013 is weak as all [expletive]. So it's probably another year we're not making the playoffs. Plus, you've weakened your allotments as well. How any of you see this as a positive move just doesn't equate to me.

[SouthSideRyan]

And not nearly the same amount of money available to address them and the class of FA for 2013 is weak as all [expletive].

 

You literally said one post ago that there will always be free agents to sign. In addition to the standard big money teams, we now have the Dodgers to compete with as they spend themselves into an even more hilarious 2nd bankruptcy in the FA market. Along with that every team, good/bad, poor/rich is extending their good players before they hit free agency. A year ago, the '13 FA class was loaded. Now it sucks. So when 2015 comes along and we're ready to take a shot at contending and there are a couple square pegs for our round holes in free agency what do we do? We overpay in the trade market and give up prospects in addition to the cash we'd pay a straight up free agent.

[davell]

And not nearly the same amount of money available to address them and the class of FA for 2013 is weak as all [expletive].

 

You literally said one post ago that there will always be free agents to sign. In addition to the standard big money teams, we now have the Dodgers to compete with as they spend themselves into an even more hilarious 2nd bankruptcy in the FA market. Along with that every team, good/bad, poor/rich is extending their good players before they hit free agency. A year ago, the '13 FA class was loaded. Now it sucks. So when 2015 comes along and we're ready to take a shot at contending and there are a couple square pegs for our round holes in free agency what do we do? We overpay in the trade market and give up prospects in addition to the cash we'd pay a straight up free agent.

 

You just answered your own question. Hell yes, you pay up for a guy in trade than sign someone to a gigantic contract he won't give you the value for. And why do you do this? Because you can. Your system has tons of guys in it by that point, BECAUSE you've made good on higher draft picks and IFA budgets. And continue to add as many low end FA you trade for other prospects, if it works out. And you try playing some of our younger guys to see if they can become trade pieces or longterm fixtures as well. Just as our FO is doing.

 

And yes, there always be FA. Who says we have to sign the mega deal anyway? Maybe when the time comes, we need a Nick Swisher type to bat 6th for us and can afford a 5/80ish type deal(total example, not anything else). But I don't care whether we ever sign another Soriano type contract and my guess is the FO feels the same way.

[XZero771679666304]

The whole "either we have a juggernaut team or every win is wasted" idea is silly.

 

 

Who is saying that? I firmly in the "add if it helps but doesn't hinder the long term product" camp. In that mindset, adding Darvish/Cespedes would have made sense, but Pujols/Fielder would not have. At all. And I think the evidence indicates that Theo and Jed made legitimate plays for the former pair. I'd like to see more wins as much as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into the belief that with a few sensible additions the Cubs could have been good this year or next. You can say that comparing WAR and the like to gauge how many wins the team might or might not have had is silly, but it is at least grounded in some logic. WAR does provide some idea. Adding a couple superstar players isn't going to have a magical transformative effect. This isn't the NBA.

 

In order to have fielded a team that was at all competitive, we'd have had to keep guys like Marshall, Cashner (given the state of the bullpen going into the season) and Ramirez, on top of adding 2-3 top tier FAs. You can go on all day about how the team could have been decent and the same system gains could have been made at the same time, but it doesn't make it true.

[pitchcs]

this is [expletive] awful

[dew1679666265]

I think what's being lost in this discussion is that it shouldn't have been, nor should it be going forward, a case of either signing big name, elite FAs right now or tanking. There is a middle ground that I think is being ignored by both sides here. My primary issue with this strategy of tanking 2-3 seasons and then by year 4 being a juggernaut is that it's very likely to not work that way. There's a very large chance that if we decide to start trying to contend in 2015 that the necessary pieces won't be available in the 2014 offseason - thus giving us the choice of either overpaying for less than ideal pieces (Soriano-esque) or pushing back our timeline of contention.

 

What we should be looking at doing is making incremental improvements as they come available that make us better now and in future seasons. It doesn't have to be the biggest name guys that we're signing, but adding guys who can help us both today and 3-5 years down the road is what I'm looking for. This past offseason, think of guys like Wei-Yin Chen, Darvish, Cespedes. For the upcoming season, think of guys like Upton, Stephen Drew (if Barney becomes a sell-high guy), Edwin Jackson, Liriano, etc. All of those guys are on the right side of 30 and would be assets to the major league roster that provide incremental improvements that lessen the challenge of adding numerous players in one offseason whenever it is that we decide to compete again, but none would cost so much as to be prohibitive to building a perennial powerhouse.

 

My argument has never been that we must contend right now or it's a failure. My argument is that we should add pieces to the major league roster intelligently as they become available so that we keep a level of respectability, giving us the opportunity to jump at a chance to contend should one present itself.

Edited August 24, 2012 by dew

[SouthSideRyan]

 

You just answered your own question. Hell yes, you pay up for a guy in trade than sign someone to a gigantic contract he won't give you the value for.

 

And then when that trade target is a FA a year or 2 later you let him walk rather than pay him 22M AAV?

 

And yes, there always be FA. Who says we have to sign the mega deal anyway?

 

Because I want star players, and star players prefer to be paid in excessive amounts of money.

[C.C.]

This reminds of the bulls suck decade. Fool the fans into thinking that we'll suck for a couple years draft well and be awesome again. How'd that work out.

[davell]

 

You just answered your own question. Hell yes, you pay up for a guy in trade than sign someone to a gigantic contract he won't give you the value for.

 

And then when that trade target is a FA a year or 2 later you let him walk rather than pay him 22M AAV?

 

And yes, there always be FA. Who says we have to sign the mega deal anyway?

 

Because I want star players, and star players prefer to be paid in excessive amounts of money.

 

 

I want the star players too. Why can't we develop them or trade for them though, instead of signing them to a deal where we're paying them throughout their 30's? And to clarify, I have no issue handing out big money deals whatsoever. I just don't like ones involving us signing guys after they're probably out of their primes or at the tip end of it. And even then, I'd be fine if it's a guy that should put us over the top. But it's a risk obviously.

 

It's just where everything heading. You're damn right, teams are locking their top guys into deals that keep them there until they're 30 or older now. Some of those will become available in trade for various reasons and I'd suspect we'd be very involved in trying to trade for these types. And I have no issue at all in extending guys to keep them from leaving, especially if they're a superstar.

[Guest]

This reminds of the bulls suck decade. Fool the fans into thinking that we'll suck for a couple years draft well and be awesome again. How'd that work out.

 

drose

[C.C.]

Because developing them is a crap shoot and trading your farm for them is stupid when you can keep the farm and just pay them. at some point you are going to have to overpay for talent if you want the prize. Stop thinking we are some crappy small market team.

[C.C.]

This reminds of the bulls suck decade. Fool the fans into thinking that we'll suck for a couple years draft well and be awesome again. How'd that work out.

 

drose

 

Sure but that took a decade.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This reminds of the bulls suck decade. Fool the fans into thinking that we'll suck for a couple years draft well and be awesome again. How'd that work out.

 

drose

 

Sure but that took a decade.

 

And then he blew out his knee and became ordinary without ever winning a title.