2013 Mock Offseason Thread

[WrigleyField 22]

By the way we could even see us make a FA signing that costs compensation. Based on age and ability, a guy like Upton could be worth the lost conpensation depending in his cost relative to the market. But we're gonna look at it from all angles.

 

The compensation this year would be a 2nd-round pick. If a guy is worth having, he's worth giving up a 2nd-round pick for.

What will Angel Pagan cost in relative terms? And what do we think they will each offer going forward? Where else could the money saved be put? Maybe towards Greinke who won't cost any conpensation? What do we think of Greinke? Is he worth it at whatever cost? Can we even get him?

 

Draft picks are a valuable commodity because they are limited. The position of the pick matters obviously, but from a macro view of the system building, losing a pick is a little bit like bunting with the pock in question being like the hitter. You can do it and justify it, but you better be sure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Really, there's nothing there at any position aside from OF, where it Bourn, Upton or a reclamation project like Sizemore, and SP, where it's Greinke, McCarthy, Sanchez and Jackson (who is somewhat volitile and represented by Boras, iirc). There's some young pitching and potentially a CF, but the other solutions just aren't there.

 

There are some older guys likely to get multiyear deals that might make next year slightly more tolerable, but would be essentially worthless beyond.

 

That works out well, because CF and SP are two of our biggest holes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Draft picks are a valuable commodity because they are limited. The position of the pick matters obviously, but from a macro view of the system building, losing a pick is a little bit like bunting with the pock in question being like the hitter. You can do it and justify it, but you better be sure.

 

The position matters a lot.

 

Early first-round pick = extremely valuable.

 

Everything else = Pick two dozen vaguely interesting guys and hope one sticks.

 

Avoiding a useful player because you don't want to give up a second-round pick is more like swinging at the first pitch because you are scared you won't get a better one.

[SouthSideRyan]

SSR, I have zero issue adding 2 of that group of pitching. I'd just stay away from Sanchez and Jackson because they'll be the two that get longer deals and aren't necessarily any better than the rest.

 

I should really have broken that group down into As and Bs wanting one of each. I wouldn't want Peavy and Dempster for example. I'm fine giving most of those guys 3 year deals.

[SouthSideRyan]

SSR, I have zero issue adding 2 of that group of pitching. I'd just stay away from Sanchez and Jackson because they'll be the two that get longer deals and aren't necessarily any better than the rest.

 

Why is longer worse? They're both fairly young (entering age 29 season next season), and have pretty well settled in as above average starters. Having a 2nd name to write in the rotation for the next 4 years isn't a bad thing in my book.

[XZero771679666304]

Really, there's nothing there at any position aside from OF, where it Bourn, Upton or a reclamation project like Sizemore, and SP, where it's Greinke, McCarthy, Sanchez and Jackson (who is somewhat volitile and represented by Boras, iirc). There's some young pitching and potentially a CF, but the other solutions just aren't there.

 

There are some older guys likely to get multiyear deals that might make next year slightly more tolerable, but would be essentially worthless beyond.

 

That works out well, because CF and SP are two of our biggest holes.

 

Which is why I said I'd buy at those two positions.

[Tracer Bullet]

Seriously though, who out of THIS FA class do people want? Hitting is complete dog [expletive]. Upton? I can buy that and I'm not opposed. But who else? Pitching? Is it Annibal and Jackson? I'm asking because I don't see the guys out there that get us into the playoffs, at least not consistently. I posted a plan with Upton somewhere, I at least saw potential and no longterm commitments other than Upton added on. Butif we aren't making the playoffs and the guys we're acquiring are all available every offseason anyway, why not let some young guys get more of a chance and if we wind up 67-95 instead of 77-85, what's the big deal? We've bettered the draft position, possibly have added another young guy or two to our longterm plans, and can still go get the exact guys we're talking about during the next offseason.

 

The pitching in this organization stinks out loud. The pitching on the FA market this offseason is quite good and deep. Our current 2013 rotation has a guy with an arm issue in the 1 spot, Travis Wood at the 3, and Roast at the 5(Still better than Casey Coleman) I see no reason not to bring in at least 2 of Villanueva, McCarthy, Marcum, Haren, Sanchez, Jackson, Peavy, Liriano, or Dempster to go along with several relief arms out there who could actually provide some stability to the pen from the word go rather than sorting through 5 [expletive] arms for the first 3 arms before settling on who actually isn't embarrassing.

 

I thought things sucked out loud. Can something stink out loud too?

[davell]

SSR, I have zero issue adding 2 of that group of pitching. I'd just stay away from Sanchez and Jackson because they'll be the two that get longer deals and aren't necessarily any better than the rest.

 

Why is longer worse? They're both fairly young (entering age 29 season next season), and have pretty well settled in as above average starters. Having a 2nd name to write in the rotation for the next 4 years isn't a bad thing in my book.

For me, it's just the fact they're pitchers. All of whom are risky. If it's an elite guy and we're in need and give out a 6-7 year deal, I'm fine with that. Solid guys? I'd take the short term one over the younger guy, because I figure it's better odds the longer term deal encounters injury over the short term one. I see the tiers though, I'd rather not wind up with two old guys. Although a pair of the younger group is fine with me.

[WrigleyField 22]

Draft picks are a valuable commodity because they are limited. The position of the pick matters obviously, but from a macro view of the system building, losing a pick is a little bit like bunting with the pock in question being like the hitter. You can do it and justify it, but you better be sure.

 

The position matters a lot.

 

Early first-round pick = extremely valuable.

 

Everything else = Pick two dozen vaguely interesting guys and hope one sticks.

 

Avoiding a useful player because you don't want to give up a second-round pick is more like swinging at the first pitch because you are scared you won't get a better one.

I'd add even the top 5 picks to that for most drafts. Unless theres a Strasburg its a total crapshoot. But that still underscores my point of it not just being about a second rounder, but any pick. Its giving away a commodity thats limited, so you better be sure its worth it. Being worth it entails way more than just the talent of the player in question.

 

On a side note I hope our current FO can hold a slight advantage in scouting to give us that edge. However the development is where they really should be able to gain the competitive advantage.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

You can look at a few things that clubs who have successfully built from within have done. Spend a lot more is the first. That can't be done anymore without effecting the other part which is having more picks. The last is development, which our previous FO by all accounts didn't really focus on. It also should be a strength of our new FO.

 

So the best we can do is 2/3. If you do believe the draft is a crapshoot it makes no sense to focus on spending more and losing picks (both by signing FA or going overslot). So you're left with trying to have more opportunities, or more likely trying to minimize your lost opportunities. Splurge on a young player at a position of need at a position of scarcity at a fair contract? Thats probably when we forget the pick. But the attitude that any player worth having is worth a pick just leaves us closer to being the Hendry era Cobs.

 

Now if you believe spending is the more important factor then we can not worry about picks, but the more we put towards amateurs, the less we have for such big time players.

 

And finally if you believe that amateur talent just isn't that important, go cheer for the White Sox.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And finally if you believe that amateur talent just isn't that important, go cheer for the White Sox.

 

This is silly. It's possible to believe that amateur talent is important but still needs to be weighed against professional talent. Almost all professional talent is more valuable than a single second-round pick.

[WrigleyField 22]

And finally if you believe that amateur talent just isn't that important, go cheer for the White Sox.

 

This is silly. It's possible to believe that amateur talent is important but still needs to be weighed against professional talent. Almost all professional talent is more valuable than a single second-round pick.

Its not a singular draft pick thats the issue. Its an overall mindset towards developing on both fronts. How can we maximize both.

 

There are major leaguers who will and those who won't affect our ability to develop the minor league system. Its Theo's jobs to manage that in the most efficient way. If you believe the most efficient way is to say every decent major leaguer is worth picks, you may as well ask for Hendry back.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Avoiding useful major leaguers because you'd have to give up a second-round pick isn't developing both fronts. It's fetishizing draft picks.

[WrigleyField 22]

Avoiding useful major leaguers because you'd have to give up a second-round pick isn't developing both fronts. It's fetishizing draft picks.

At least try to read everything I've written. Nowhere do I discuss avoiding major leaguers. At this point you've only responded to bits of my posts and ignored all other points.

 

Simple question. Is developing the minor league important?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hairyducked Idiot]

*shrug* if that's how you want it.

 

 

You can look at a few things that clubs who have successfully built from within have done.

 

Okay, who do you want me to look at? Name teams. It seems like you are just speaking in imaginary generalities.

 

Spend a lot more is the first.

 

Meh. Even before the new CBA, the competitive advantage there was dwindling pretty quickly. Overslotting is one of those things that only works if not very many teams are doing it. As more teams do it, the competitive advantage dwindles significantly. I'm not at all convinced the Cubs got anything particularly useful out of their 2011 Overslot Party.

 

That can't be done anymore without effecting the other part which is having more picks. The last is development, which our previous FO by all accounts didn't really focus on.

 

I agree that the last front office dropped the ball on acquiring more picks. There were many situations where they could have easily netted extra picks and failed to do so out of sheer laziness. They were there for more or less free sometimes, and they just didn't want them.

 

But that's still a far cry from talking about passing on players you actually want for the majors because of a single, second-round pick.

 

So the best we can do is 2/3. If you do believe the draft is a crapshoot it makes no sense to focus on spending more and losing picks (both by signing FA or going overslot).

 

The draft is most definitely not a crapshoot. Or at least, it's a heavily weighted one. It is a test of scouting (and later, development) skill.

 

Most importantly, it's extremely top heavy. You listed all the ways to try to maximize the draft, but you ignored the one that really matters.

 

Don't be wrong about your high picks.

 

Hitting on your first-round draft picks far outweighs anything else in the draft. The reason it looks like the Boston Red Sox placed so much importance on having multiple picks to smooth out the crapshoot aspects is because the Red Sox knew they were operating without high picks.

 

So you're left with trying to have more opportunities, or more likely trying to minimize your lost opportunities. Splurge on a young player at a position of need at a position of scarcity at a fair contract? Thats probably when we forget the pick. But the attitude that any player worth having is worth a pick just leaves us closer to being the Hendry era Cobs.

 

This is a lazy thought process that I've seen many Cubs fans fall victim to.

 

When you can't truly defend an idea, just default to "that's what Hendry would have done!" and feel like you've proven your case.

 

Jim Hendry did a lot of things for the Cubs. He did some of them very poorly. He did some of them very well. He did some of them mediocrely. His overall results were average, which wasn't acceptable for a team with our resources. He wasn't the baseball incarnation of the Douglas Adams character who did everything wrong in life and handed out pamphlets listing all of his decisions, so that people could always do the opposite.

 

Now if you believe spending is the more important factor then we can not worry about picks, but the more we put towards amateurs, the less we have for such big time players.

 

I'm not sure what this means. You are aware that the new CBA has severely limited amateur spending to the point where you can't just choose to spend more, right?

 

Its not a singular draft pick thats the issue. Its an overall mindset towards developing on both fronts. How can we maximize both.

 

It very much is about a single draft pick. That's what we were talking about.

 

As I said, you aren't talking about maximizing both. You are talking about fetishizing draft picks. Passing on useful major league talent because you are scared to lose your 2nd-round pick is the epitome of not maximizing both.

 

If Theo Epstein and the Brain Trust are anywhere near as good at drafting as they seem to be, they can do just as well with a first-round pick and picks 3-25 as they can with picks 1-25. The difference with a missing non-first pick is minimal.

 

There are major leaguers who will and those who won't affect our ability to develop the minor league system. Its Theo's jobs to manage that in the most efficient way. If you believe the most efficient way is to say every decent major leaguer is worth picks, you may as well ask for Hendry back.

 

See above.

[WrigleyField 22]

Meh. Even before the new CBA, the competitive advantage there was dwindling pretty quickly. Overslotting is one of those things that only works if not very many teams are doing it. As more teams do it, the competitive advantage dwindles significantly. I'm not at all convinced the Cubs got anything particularly useful out of their 2011 Overslot Party.

Yea I kind of agree on the last point, but I think you can make someargument of execution over philosophy for why the Cubs may not see a lot of use for their overslots in 2011. With the right front office, it absolutely is still an advantage to spend more. Sure there is a dwindling return, like any inefficiency, such as OBP. I don't think it had gotten to the point where it wasn't still an advantage. Still, I think this advantage was less than the advantage of teams who simply stockpiled more picks than the other guys.

 

The draft is most definitely not a crapshoot. Or at least, it's a heavily weighted one. It is a test of scouting (and later, development) skill.

Early first-round pick = extremely valuable.

 

Everything else = Pick two dozen vaguely interesting guys and hope one sticks.

If that's not a way of saying crapshoot, I don't know what is.

 

This is a lazy thought process that I've seen many Cubs fans fall victim to.

 

When you can't truly defend an idea, just default to "that's what Hendry would have done!" and feel like you've proven your case.

Yea, a bit lazy. But its also pretty true. Hendry had an attitude that the developing the minors was secondary to the major leagues.

If a guy is worth having, he's worth giving up a 2nd-round pick for.

And I'll reiterate, its not about a second or even a first rounder for me. Its about limiting your opportunities. I feel roughly the same if I were to lose a 4th to a 2nd. But if you only consider the major league impact you may i find yourself losing 2-4. And while doing that once isn't going to kill a system it has to be weighed against the alternatives, with a realistic view of where you stand. Its simple economics of allocating resources and every transaction has its obvious costs, its hidden ones and its opportunity costs. Where does the cost of minor league development fall within the major league impact? The second round pick is just like any other cost you consider. No I'm not avoiding any MLB FA, for any reason (other than sucking), but yes, I'm going to consider all costs as it relates to the entire organization and compare it to the other options available.

 

 

I'm not sure what this means. You are aware that the new CBA has severely limited amateur spending to the point where you can't just choose to spend more, right?

No doubt, its harder, but you can still do it, you just are penalized (in money and picks). But if you felt spending overslot was the most important factor, you still could. I wouldn't argue that to be the case, but just lying out all the varying theories on how one might go about building a strong farm system.

 

 

It very much is about a single draft pick. That's what we were talking about.

I never was. If you got that, I'm sorry. But you did say this:

If a guy is worth having, he's worth giving up a 2nd-round pick for.

Sounds like more than just any singular pick to me, but an overall philosophy that dries our organization of picks. Although since you misunderstood me, I'll concede I may have read too much into your words. Please correct me if I did.

 

As I said, you aren't talking about maximizing both. You are talking about fetishizing draft picks. Passing on useful major league talent because you are scared to lose your 2nd-round pick is the epitome of not maximizing both.

Not scared. Not fetishing. Just trying to look at the entire organization as a single entity that attempts to allocate resources. Simple as that.

 

If Theo Epstein and the Brain Trust are anywhere near as good at drafting as they seem to be, they can do just as well with a first-round pick and picks 3-25 as they can with picks 1-25. The difference with a missing non-first pick is minimal.

I'd just say to see all my previous thoughts regarding it not being about one pick, but of the attitude of any player being worthy of signing worth a pick (assuming we are talking starting type players here when we say "any"). When looking at our roster holes there are a lot of players who I would consider. Not every player would I give up a pick for because there are a lot of players who most likely won't cost picks and may even cost less money, allowing other opportunities.

[Beer Kaese]

I don't follow the Cubs as closely as many of you but here's my 2013 plan.

 

I'll start with my projected opening day lineup:

 

CF DeJesus

RF Sappelt

1B Rizzo

LF Soriano

SS Castro

3B Stewart

C Castillo

2B Barney

 

I'll begin in the outfield. Soriano is too productive to give away and isn't blocking any young talent so he stays, for now. DeJesus has wicked L/R splits, can play all three outfield spots and is in the final year of a reasonable contract. Jackson starts in AAA and DeJesus is moved at the deadline to a contender who needs more offense against right handed pitching, almost the easiest trade to make. Sappelt has been impressive enough that I want to keep a corner outfield spot open. I would look to free agency to fill the backup spots. I know some will hate this idea but I like Reed Johnson. I would platoon him with DeJesus in center and have all three outfield positions backed up with one guy. This allows me to keep Campana in AAA and I have three able center fielders so Jackson can work on his mechanics. For the fifth outfielder, any guy with some power works and the ability right is a bonus.

 

The infield is almost brain dead simple. I believe that it's possible that the broken bone in Stewart's hand might explain why his offensive production fell off and the Cubs owe it to themselves to give Stewart the opportunity. If it works, the Cubs are out of AAAA and back into the major leagues. Castro. I would like to see competition at second but if that lineup (Sappelt and Stewart) is productive then Barney is good enough for now. Rizzo. Castillo looks good but having Clevenger around can't hurt. As for the bench, with Clevenger around you've covered the plate and corners. Barney can play short so a player who can play second or second and third is all that is essential.

 

My eleven position plays are: Soriano, DeJesus, Sappelt, Johnson, Stewart, Castro, Barney, Rizzo, Castillo, Clevenger and a second baseman who can play third. I really don't care who the last two players are, aside from an outfield bat and not wasting money or giving out multi-year contracts.

 

The pitching staff is impossible to predict as this is where the Cubs should spend some cash. I can live with Samardzija, Garza and Wood but there isn't anything out of the rest that I would expect to be major league ready before the middle of next season. If the Cubs are intent on moving Garza before the deadline, they should have a player ready in AAA. I would sign two starting pitchers. The first would get a three or four year contract. He's only a middle of the rotation guy but young enough that it's not unreasonable to expect we've locked him up for his peak seasons. The other guy can be anything short term. As for the bullpen, who knows.

 

Moving on to 2014 and a team with a legitimate chance to contend day one.

 

Soriano may or may not be with the team at the end of the 2013 season but I can't see why we'd trade a guy who is productive, not a malcontent, isn't going to bring a lot in return, isn't blocking anyone and gets easier to trade with each passing day. I can't believe I'm saying it but it wouldn't bother me if he played out his contract. That said, if Sappelt rips it up and we can get a youngish stud corner outfielder, then I trade without hesitation no matter the cost or the return. Also, if my plan fails but Soriano is productive, he's a nice trade chip before the 2014 deadline.

 

Center is a different matter. My plan insures Jackson gets time to work before he's called up but if he can't be productive then we'll need to sign a guy for a season or two. I'm comfortable with Sappelt manning one of the corner spots. I will concede small sample size, weak competition and no scouting reports. I'm going with my gut and keeping a corner outfield spot open for him to seize next spring.

 

The infield is in decent shape. I feel comfortable with Castro and Rizzo as two quality pieces to a contending puzzle. I can live with a cheap Barney if we get production elsewhere. I like what I've seen from Castillo. The hot corner is key. If the broken bone was the issue and Stewart is back to the player he was prior to the injury it's huge. I'm not suggesting he's great or that he would settle in at third long term, only that he would be an asset.

 

Now, setting aside center for the moment, if everything else lives up to my expectations I am still looking at corner outfield, third and second as positions where I can improve my team in 2014 and beyond.

 

Pitching is another matter. I'm assuming Samardzija is good enough to be the second or third best starting pitcher on a contender, in 2014. The John Doe character is a three or four. Wood and whoever fills Garza's role are fours or fives. I also assume there will be a couple of guys as good those two in spring training. That means, at worst, I have the middle and back of the rotation set with major league ready pitching in AAA. For the 2014 season I do what ever it takes, if it's a pile or cash or a pile of prospects it doesn't matter, I get a top of the rotation pitcher. And I would not shy away from adding a top quality older pitcher on an expensive but much shorter deal as well.

 

I know some believe I lack the vision or creativity to build a contender for next year. I believe I am being prudent. I want to see Sappelt, Castillo, Stewart and Jackson and if necessary show me Vitters and Clevenger too. I want to see Samardzija, Wood, and the pitcher we are able to sign to a multi-year deal. Show me a couple farm kids able to pitch effectively in the majors. If I see enough to justify committing big money long term in 2014 to a legitimate and proven top of the rotation guy, even if it costs top prospects, I do it. If all these guys who are unproven (or unknown) do not justify my faith then trading top prospects now is suicidal and committing massive cash long term to a top shelf player who makes almost no difference in the standings despite a Cy Young type performance is a massive waste of cash.

 

Garza and the Cubs contending in June are the wildcards.

[Backtobanks]

I don't follow the Cubs as closely as many of you but here's my 2013 plan.

 

I'll start with my projected opening day lineup:

 

CF DeJesus

RF Sappelt

1B Rizzo

LF Soriano

SS Castro

3B Stewart

C Castillo

2B Barney

 

I'll begin in the outfield. Soriano is too productive to give away and isn't blocking any young talent so he stays, for now. DeJesus has wicked L/R splits, can play all three outfield spots and is in the final year of a reasonable contract. Jackson starts in AAA and DeJesus is moved at the deadline to a contender who needs more offense against right handed pitching, almost the easiest trade to make. Sappelt has been impressive enough that I want to keep a corner outfield spot open. I would look to free agency to fill the backup spots. I know some will hate this idea but I like Reed Johnson. I would platoon him with DeJesus in center and have all three outfield positions backed up with one guy. This allows me to keep Campana in AAA and I have three able center fielders so Jackson can work on his mechanics. For the fifth outfielder, any guy with some power works and the ability right is a bonus.

 

The infield is almost brain dead simple. I believe that it's possible that the broken bone in Stewart's hand might explain why his offensive production fell off and the Cubs owe it to themselves to give Stewart the opportunity. If it works, the Cubs are out of AAAA and back into the major leagues. Castro. I would like to see competition at second but if that lineup (Sappelt and Stewart) is productive then Barney is good enough for now. Rizzo. Castillo looks good but having Clevenger around can't hurt. As for the bench, with Clevenger around you've covered the plate and corners. Barney can play short so a player who can play second or second and third is all that is essential.

 

My eleven position plays are: Soriano, DeJesus, Sappelt, Johnson, Stewart, Castro, Barney, Rizzo, Castillo, Clevenger and a second baseman who can play third. I really don't care who the last two players are, aside from an outfield bat and not wasting money or giving out multi-year contracts.

 

The pitching staff is impossible to predict as this is where the Cubs should spend some cash. I can live with Samardzija, Garza and Wood but there isn't anything out of the rest that I would expect to be major league ready before the middle of next season. If the Cubs are intent on moving Garza before the deadline, they should have a player ready in AAA. I would sign two starting pitchers. The first would get a three or four year contract. He's only a middle of the rotation guy but young enough that it's not unreasonable to expect we've locked him up for his peak seasons. The other guy can be anything short term. As for the bullpen, who knows.

 

Moving on to 2014 and a team with a legitimate chance to contend day one.

 

Soriano may or may not be with the team at the end of the 2013 season but I can't see why we'd trade a guy who is productive, not a malcontent, isn't going to bring a lot in return, isn't blocking anyone and gets easier to trade with each passing day. I can't believe I'm saying it but it wouldn't bother me if he played out his contract. That said, if Sappelt rips it up and we can get a youngish stud corner outfielder, then I trade without hesitation no matter the cost or the return. Also, if my plan fails but Soriano is productive, he's a nice trade chip before the 2014 deadline.

 

Center is a different matter. My plan insures Jackson gets time to work before he's called up but if he can't be productive then we'll need to sign a guy for a season or two. I'm comfortable with Sappelt manning one of the corner spots. I will concede small sample size, weak competition and no scouting reports. I'm going with my gut and keeping a corner outfield spot open for him to seize next spring.

 

The infield is in decent shape. I feel comfortable with Castro and Rizzo as two quality pieces to a contending puzzle. I can live with a cheap Barney if we get production elsewhere. I like what I've seen from Castillo. The hot corner is key. If the broken bone was the issue and Stewart is back to the player he was prior to the injury it's huge. I'm not suggesting he's great or that he would settle in at third long term, only that he would be an asset.

 

Now, setting aside center for the moment, if everything else lives up to my expectations I am still looking at corner outfield, third and second as positions where I can improve my team in 2014 and beyond.

 

Pitching is another matter. I'm assuming Samardzija is good enough to be the second or third best starting pitcher on a contender, in 2014. The John Doe character is a three or four. Wood and whoever fills Garza's role are fours or fives. I also assume there will be a couple of guys as good those two in spring training. That means, at worst, I have the middle and back of the rotation set with major league ready pitching in AAA. For the 2014 season I do what ever it takes, if it's a pile or cash or a pile of prospects it doesn't matter, I get a top of the rotation pitcher. And I would not shy away from adding a top quality older pitcher on an expensive but much shorter deal as well.

 

I know some believe I lack the vision or creativity to build a contender for next year. I believe I am being prudent. I want to see Sappelt, Castillo, Stewart and Jackson and if necessary show me Vitters and Clevenger too. I want to see Samardzija, Wood, and the pitcher we are able to sign to a multi-year deal. Show me a couple farm kids able to pitch effectively in the majors. If I see enough to justify committing big money long term in 2014 to a legitimate and proven top of the rotation guy, even if it costs top prospects, I do it. If all these guys who are unproven (or unknown) do not justify my faith then trading top prospects now is suicidal and committing massive cash long term to a top shelf player who makes almost no difference in the standings despite a Cy Young type performance is a massive waste of cash.

 

Garza and the Cubs contending in June are the wildcards.

 

Your plan looks like it might have a contender by 2027.

[Beer Kaese]

My plan adds a reliable arm and evaluates the top end of the farm. And, if there is enough to work with, I'll throw money at a position player and two pitchers in 2014 and ... you are still not happy? You're nuts.

[davell]

Sappelt looked solid in his short time, but everything up until this screams 4th OF. I'm perfectly happy with him getting 250-300 at bats in that role, but thats the max I want to see him. My guess is we trade for a Chris Young type in CF, add a couple of SP in FA and a bullpen arm or two. A trade or two woukd be interesting, but thats all I really see us doing. Soriano stays and Valbuena and Stewart give us an underwhelming 3B. Better pitching and progression fron Castro, Rizzo, and Castillo get us to 70-73 wins next year, even after a couple of selloffs at the deadline. I hope for more, but thats all the activity I actually see this offseason.

[El Duderino]

Chris Young? am I missing something about him? He is kind of terrible

[Gilby]

Chris Young? am I missing something about him? He is kind of terrible

 

He's basically BJ Upton. If he stays healthy, there's a decent chance he'd be our best player, though I do think Starlin puts up a 4-5 WAR next season.

[davell]

I threw him out there because Arizona almost definitely will be trading an OFer and theres been speculation it'll be him. He'll be making 8.7 mill next year, has an 11 mill team option after that and has some power. Which Sveum said he wants anyway. I doubt he'd cost us much, in terms of prospects, and has had some solid seasons. I figure he's a decent stopgap for us, while we're rebuilding.

[El Duderino]

Unless he was really hurt last year, I'm not sure he'd be that much of a better stopgap than BJax.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Chris Young? am I missing something about him? He is kind of terrible

 

He's basically BJ Upton. If he stays healthy, there's a decent chance he'd be our best player, though I do think Starlin puts up a 4-5 WAR next season.

 

I'd just as soon hope that Brett Jackson turns into a Chris Young type outfielder than go out of the way to acquired one. I'm still all for the idea of a Jackson/Sappelt platoon in center.

 

Looking over the FA list, there are a lot of guys who would be nice band aids for ready made contenders, but few difference makers, aside from Hamilton, Greinke, and potentially Peavy if he manages to stay healthy again.

 

The only OF free agent I could see as a possibility is Melky if he's willing to sign something incentive heavy with a team friendly 2014 option so that he can be flipped ala Maholm if he has a strong 1st half and we don't contend.