2013

[davell]

Not that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, but if this IS the route we take, I want to see actual baseball ops budgets and how much we're saving now, that can and presumably WILL be spent later.

 

What's $20-30M gonna do to future budgets? You can't really just apply it to one year. If you budget it over 5-6 years, it's not really a consequential increase.

But that's not all it would be. That much was saved just this year alone. I'll be shocked if our payroll is much over 100 for 2013 either and that allows us to add some really solid pieces AND stay down that low. And with the amount of good, young, cheap talent we'll supposedly have playing, it's going to be a long time before we're looking at a 150 mill payroll most likely. Even when we do spend on a few guys. I'm thinking that if this is a 10 year run for this group, there's likely to be 150 mill saved over the first 5 years, that could be added towards the last 5.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And then we make the playoffs 3 out of those last 5 years, and Jim Hendry laughs.

[Guest]

Not that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, but if this IS the route we take, I want to see actual baseball ops budgets and how much we're saving now, that can and presumably WILL be spent later.

 

What's $20-30M gonna do to future budgets? You can't really just apply it to one year. If you budget it over 5-6 years, it's not really a consequential increase.

But that's not all it would be. That much was saved just this year alone. I'll be shocked if our payroll is much over 100 for 2013 either and that allows us to add some really solid pieces AND stay down that low. And with the amount of good, young, cheap talent we'll supposedly have playing, it's going to be a long time before we're looking at a 150 mill payroll most likely. Even when we do spend on a few guys. I'm thinking that if this is a 10 year run for this group, there's likely to be 150 mill saved over the first 5 years, that could be added towards the last 5.

 

We're adding revenue streams constantly and still don't have the big one that'll be the TV contract. We had better not be planning to use a big chunk of the next 5 years worth of payroll on the following 5 years.

[davell]

Honestly, in saying that, I fully expect us to be fielding damn good teams during the latter part of the initial 5. But we'll have lots of young, cheaper guys, so the payroll won't be high. Kind of like Texas a few years back. As much as I've announced how much I love this direction, if we don't have 2 playoff runs in the first 5 years and at least 4 out of the folkowing 5, then the group has been unsuccessful, given the resource advantages we've got over the division. And while 6 in 10 years is acceptable, I'm hoping for 7 or even 8.

[SouthSideRyan]

Not that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, but if this IS the route we take, I want to see actual baseball ops budgets and how much we're saving now, that can and presumably WILL be spent later.

I think when they feel they have developed enough guys from within and they are ready to contribute to the major league roster you will see the flood gates open and there really won't be any sort of monetary limitations to acuqire a guy through FA/trade if the FO deems it necessary to add a player(s).

 

If there won't be any monetary restrictions on the 2016 budget, why are we so worried that we may hamstring it with a 15M player who would just be a little above average instead of a star?

[Cubswin11]

Not that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, but if this IS the route we take, I want to see actual baseball ops budgets and how much we're saving now, that can and presumably WILL be spent later.

I think when they feel they have developed enough guys from within and they are ready to contribute to the major league roster you will see the flood gates open and there really won't be any sort of monetary limitations to acuqire a guy through FA/trade if the FO deems it necessary to add a player(s).

 

If there won't be any monetary restrictions on the 2016 budget, why are we so worried that we may hamstring it with a 15M player who would just be a little above average instead of a star?

What if there is a star available that year during FA but we have one of those $15m above average players at his position because this year or next (or whenever) we spent just to spend because we had the money even though we knew we weren't going to compete and we couldn't add that star player because of it?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What if there is a star available that year during FA but we have one of those $15m above average players at his position because this year or next (or whenever) we spent just to spend because we had the money even though we knew we weren't going to compete and we couldn't add that star player because of it?

 

Then it turns out we made a genius move, because six years down the road there's an even bigger star available at that position right as our above-average player's contract expires, and we aren't tied down to that mere star we could have signed.

[jersey cubs fan]

What if there is a star available that year during FA but we have one of those $15m above average players at his position because this year or next (or whenever) we spent just to spend because we had the money even though we knew we weren't going to compete and we couldn't add that star player because of it?

 

Move positions.

 

 

Next question.

[Guest]

Not that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, but if this IS the route we take, I want to see actual baseball ops budgets and how much we're saving now, that can and presumably WILL be spent later.

I think when they feel they have developed enough guys from within and they are ready to contribute to the major league roster you will see the flood gates open and there really won't be any sort of monetary limitations to acuqire a guy through FA/trade if the FO deems it necessary to add a player(s).

 

If there won't be any monetary restrictions on the 2016 budget, why are we so worried that we may hamstring it with a 15M player who would just be a little above average instead of a star?

What if there is a star available that year during FA but we have one of those $15m above average players at his position because this year or next (or whenever) we spent just to spend because we had the money even though we knew we weren't going to compete and we couldn't add that star player because of it?

 

There probably won't be, though. We're just going to have to accept that great players aren't going to hit free agency (at least, not at a young age) that often and you'll have to overpay for above average players on the FA market.

[bjam12]

Theo quote:

 

David Kaplan ‏@thekapman

"We will build the 2013 team this winter on the assumption that Vitters and Jackson are going back to AAA."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Theo quote:

 

David Kaplan ‏@thekapman

"We will build the 2013 team this winter on the assumption that Vitters and Jackson are going back to AAA."

 

 

:yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

[jersey cubs fan]

So Bryan LaHair is going to play third or center?

[Guest]

Is there anything in the 2-3 WAR range available at 3B on the FA market? Just curious.

[SouthSideRyan]

Not that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, but if this IS the route we take, I want to see actual baseball ops budgets and how much we're saving now, that can and presumably WILL be spent later.

I think when they feel they have developed enough guys from within and they are ready to contribute to the major league roster you will see the flood gates open and there really won't be any sort of monetary limitations to acuqire a guy through FA/trade if the FO deems it necessary to add a player(s).

 

If there won't be any monetary restrictions on the 2016 budget, why are we so worried that we may hamstring it with a 15M player who would just be a little above average instead of a star?

What if there is a star available that year during FA but we have one of those $15m above average players at his position because this year or next (or whenever) we spent just to spend because we had the money even though we knew we weren't going to compete and we couldn't add that star player because of it?

 

Then you trade the above average player, collect the delicious prospects and sign the star who will never actually be available.

[SouthSideRyan]

Is there anything in the 2-3 WAR range available at 3B on the FA market? Just curious.

 

No.

[gocubs2118]

Youkilis might be but I doubt he wants to spend next year on a team that's not going to make the playoffs.

[Guest]

Is there anything in the 2-3 WAR range available at 3B on the FA market? Just curious.

 

No.

 

Then Valbuena or a trade it is.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

The more I think about it I think Jed and Theo's plan may have slightly shifted.

 

They stated they were very happy with the moves they made in picking up impact young offensive talent. On the flip side they were disappointed in the lack of pitching they were able to acquire. There are some intriguing arms available this offseason that can be viewed as short term contracts and depending on which way the team goes in the standings could be moved for long term assets. The wild card here to me is the fact that the Garza injury left him untradeable, and the emergence of Jeff Samardjiza. There is a buzz around the league that Shark has true #1 capability and made huge strides in getting their this year. Garza if/when healthy can be an adequate #2 and a very good #3. The Cubs will continue to use Wood in the back end of the rotation.

 

If the Angels opt to not pick up Santana and Haren's contract that adds two mid rotation arms to the free agent market. Now i still do not believe the Cubs would go after Grienke but they could be aggressive going after 2 of Santana, Haren, Liriano, potentially Floyd, Peavy, Marcum, McCarthy, Sanchez, Lohse(possibly). Adding 2 arms of this caliber to the middle/back of the rotation could give the Cubs a solid to strong rotation.

 

The offense needs a ton of work and the bullpen may be able to be fixed internally. I think we are going to see the Cubs be more aggressive in moving this team towards a 2014 division winner and perenial contender, to do so they will need to get significantly better this offseason.

[Exile on Waveland]

 

There is no bill of goods sold here, they aren't trying to hide anything or scam anyone.

 

Parallel fronts says what?

 

And every chance to contend is "precious"?

[23sharks]

But as much as I'm for the apparent way things are headed, if we're not pushing for the playoffs in 2014 and beginning a dominant run in 2015, I'll be pissed as hell. Because even I'll admit that's more than enough time to get this thing done in.

 

 

No one is going to tolerate this thing going beyond next year. And I don't think they'll have to.

 

I hope you're right, but they have a LOT of work to do before they are competitive. They need at least 4 more good everyday players, a couple of starters, and a few relievers. With most of their top prospects in the lower levels, they probably won't get much immediate help there either. I'd like to believe they'll get it together soon rather than later, but I think it's gonna take at least a couple more years.

 

Seeing as how they are doing pretty well at 5 of them, I'm not sure how they need 4 (in the short term, that is).

 

If they just fill the black hole that is CF, they will be in much better shape in terms of the position players.

 

As for a couple of starters, I'm pretty confident that will be addressed this offseason.

 

They need an entire OF and a 3rd baseman. Soriano did better than anyone could expect, but he isn't going to be part of this team when they are actually able to contend.

Castro-Rizzo-Castillo-Shark are the only obvious good players on this team. Barney is ok, and would be fine on a team that had a bunch of good hitters in the lineup. Nobody knows how bad Garza's injury is. The bullpen was a mess most of the year. I want them to turn this around as much as anybody, but I'm just being realistic, there are a ton of holes that need to be filled.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Not every player has to be "long-term awesome piece" or "hole."

[ConstableRabbit]

 

There is no bill of goods sold here, they aren't trying to hide anything or scam anyone.

 

Parallel fronts says what?

 

And every chance to contend is "precious"?

Sacred.

[Guest]

“I’ve always believed – and I still believe – that the dollars you spend in major-league free agency provide the lowest return on investment of any dollars that we spend in baseball operations,” Epstein said. “So you don’t set out looking to spend all your money in free agency. It’s a bit of a fool’s errand, because the way the baseball salary structure works, players don’t get to free agency these days until they’re usually on the other side of 30.

 

“You almost can’t help but pay for past performance instead of future performance. It’s not a good way to get good return on the investment. But (it is) the available talent pool without giving up any other resources in terms of players. The dollars that you spend on the draft (or international amateurs) are better dollars in terms of return on investment than dollars you spend in free agency.

 

“But you can’t build a team for next year that way. So you have to recognize that it’s an imperfect process, recognize you’re going to miss. Recognize almost anytime you sign a significant free agent, it’s for a year or two longer than you want. It’s for a few million dollars more a year than you want. And occasionally that just has to be the price of doing business.”

 

“We’ll have to pursue starting pitching in free agency,” Epstein said. “There are going to be a lot of teams looking at a pretty limited field. So I don’t think there’s going to be great value to be had out there. But I think there’s some quality, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see us sign a free agent or two for our rotation.”

 

In the season’s final days, manager Dale Sveum repeatedly mentioned how the Cubs will be looking hard at non-tendered players and minor-league free agents and hoping to hit a home run on those overlooked, undervalued assets.

 

Epstein was asked if the Cubs would be willing to go four-plus years on a pitcher. Matching up timelines between a win-now player and a win-consistently-later front office is what made Matt Garza such an interesting case study.

 

“There’s no blanket rule that says just because we are committed to a certain vision for the future that we can’t sign a contract of a certain duration,” Epstein said. “Hopefully, (we) sign players this winter that become big parts of that future and become elements of our foundation. Now things will have to break a certain way for us for that to happen, but that’s the goal.

 

“You don’t only set out looking for stopgaps, or you don’t only set out looking for players who you can maybe flip for younger players down the line. You set out looking for players that can become part of that foundation.

 

“If there’s the right player at the right contract – and even of a significant length – if we believe in that player and we believe it’s a good investment, we won’t shy away from it.”

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Will-the-Cubs-be-ready-to-pull-the-trigg?blockID=784663&feedID=9399

Edited October 6, 2012 by David

[Guest]

Do that and make a legitimate effort to sign Upton (by that I mean one that can actually realistically result in him signing here). That's all I ask this offseason.

[Guest]

WHY IS NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT STUFF UP THERE?