Cubs after Anibal Sanchez? (Signs with Tiger 5/$80mil)

[KingCubsFan]

I’m surprised at the miserable tone in this thread… You guys are usually better than that here.

 

For this year, does any reasonable Cub fan want the Cubs in bidding wars with the Dodgers & Angels right now? If the Cubs lose 84 or 94 games this year, what's the difference?!? To varying degrees, the Cubs established 3 young core players in 2012, Rizzo, Shark & Castillo. If the Cubs can add 3 or more young core players to the team this year & add as much talent to the farm system as last year, that would be an excellent year. This would set the Cubs up to be playoff contenders in 2014 & they’d be setup for a long term run.

 

Enjoy the process!

 

2. The difference between losing 84 and 94 games lies in the entertainment value. I'd like my favorite team to have a chance to win games sometimes.

.

No offense, but that's such a meatballish way of looking at things. If this team has no chance of making the playoffs, all else being equal, give me the benefits of losing more games.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I’m surprised at the miserable tone in this thread… You guys are usually better than that here.

 

For this year, does any reasonable Cub fan want the Cubs in bidding wars with the Dodgers & Angels right now? If the Cubs lose 84 or 94 games this year, what's the difference?!? To varying degrees, the Cubs established 3 young core players in 2012, Rizzo, Shark & Castillo. If the Cubs can add 3 or more young core players to the team this year & add as much talent to the farm system as last year, that would be an excellent year. This would set the Cubs up to be playoff contenders in 2014 & they’d be setup for a long term run.

 

Enjoy the process!

 

2. The difference between losing 84 and 94 games lies in the entertainment value. I'd like my favorite team to have a chance to win games sometimes.

.

No offense, but that's such a meatballish way of looking at things. If this team has no chance of making the playoffs, all else being equal, give me the benefits of losing more games.

 

Furthermore, I was actually pretty entertained last season.

 

- At the beginning, we had some new faces to watch to see how they'd do. We also had Starlin Castro, of course.

 

- We then had a stretch of like 25 games where we had the best record in MLB.

 

- We had Rizzo come up.

 

- The trade deadline that made for an interesting time.

 

- We had Jackson and Vitters called up to watch.

[Backtobanks]

I’m surprised at the miserable tone in this thread… You guys are usually better than that here.

 

For this year, does any reasonable Cub fan want the Cubs in bidding wars with the Dodgers & Angels right now? If the Cubs lose 84 or 94 games this year, what's the difference?!? To varying degrees, the Cubs established 3 young core players in 2012, Rizzo, Shark & Castillo. If the Cubs can add 3 or more young core players to the team this year & add as much talent to the farm system as last year, that would be an excellent year. This would set the Cubs up to be playoff contenders in 2014 & they’d be setup for a long term run.

 

Enjoy the process!

 

2. The difference between losing 84 and 94 games lies in the entertainment value. I'd like my favorite team to have a chance to win games sometimes.

.

No offense, but that's such a meatballish way of looking at things. If this team has no chance of making the playoffs, all else being equal, give me the benefits of losing more games.

 

Furthermore, I was actually pretty entertained last season.

 

- At the beginning, we had some new faces to watch to see how they'd do. We also had Starlin Castro, of course.

 

- We then had a stretch of like 25 games where we had the best record in MLB.

 

- We had Rizzo come up.

 

- The trade deadline that made for an interesting time.

 

- We had Jackson and Vitters called up to watch.

 

Obviously you must be easy to entertain. Most of the 2nd half of the season was unwatchable, especially when it became apparent that Jackson and Vitters were totally overmatched at the ML level.

[Sosa21MVP]

The team last season had actually become fairly watchable until Dempster & Maholm were traded, then it became a train wreck to watch. Vitters & Jackson getting called up was exciting at first but after seeing both guys struggle badly, that feeling of excitement wore off quickly.

 

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Jackson and Vitters got called up in early August.

 

So, even if we all knew they were overmatched by Aug. 15-20, there isn't that much more of a season left at that point. It's not like the Cubs were horrible or unwatchable up to July 31. If a team loses 100 games, you imagine that the whole season was horrible. It really wasn't.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

[USSoccer]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

 

Give me a break.

[USSoccer]

Of course there are some contracts that are "bad", but we aren't going to get extra outs per game for leading the league in wins per dollar.

 

The market is what it is. Pitching is at a premium; if you want to buy pitching (or elite offense) on the market, you need to be prepared to pay that premium price. Dumpster diving for 1 year "make good" contracts and other team's busted prospects is fine to a point, but you can't expect to acquire elite or above average talent consistently by doing that.

That’s the thing, right now you don’t buy elite pitching & hitting, you develop it. “Dumpster diving” isn’t the long term plan, it’s just perfect for right now.

 

And this is why people make the mocking comments about wave after wave of prospects to both stack the lineup and trade for parts.

 

Please enlighten me as to what we'll do when 75% or whatever the attrition rate is of the prospects we dream on don't pan out. These are not all or nothing, one or the other propositions. You can use free agency to hedge your bets and fill needs that you currently cannot fill. I'd like to see them acting a little more serious about trying to compete over the next year or two as opposed to just accepting being bad until 2015.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

 

Give me a break.

 

Please expand, if you can.

 

What part do you disagree with?

[davell]

Prospects are currency. No one in their right mind that is in favor of the rebuild is trumpeting that we're going to have a homegrown team or anything. All the Baezes, Almoras, Solers, Vogelbachs, and the rest need to do is make it a ways up the chain. My guess is most of our guys are dealt either when they're in AA or slightly before they even reach that high. And yes, with the track records and skillsets most of our guys have shown, expecting them to not flame out by then, isn't unreasonable whatsoever.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Prospects are currency. No one in their right mind that is in favor of the rebuild is trumpeting that we're going to have a homegrown team or anything. All the Baezes, Almoras, Solers, Vogelbachs, and the rest need to do is make it a ways up the chain. My guess is most of our guys are dealt either when they're in AA or slightly before they even reach that high. And yes, with the track records and skillsets most of our guys have shown, expecting them to not flame out by then, isn't unreasonable whatsoever.

 

I actually expect some to be dealt next year for either David Price or King Felix.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

 

And there's no indication that we're done. As quickly as the Sanchez report came out of nowhere, a new one could pop up in it's place. Last I checked there was minimal action on the Jackson and Marcum fronts. We could very well be in on one of them.

[Backtobanks]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

 

First, Baker and Feldman are middle to back of the rotation starters that hve question marks attached to them. As for doing more than a lot of teams in free agency, the other teams didn't start with a 100-loss team.

[SouthSideRyan]

still don't understand how anyone can be mad at the front office for this. they made him an offer on the very high end of what he's worth, and then theo himseld flew to miami to meet him face to face. what more could they have done?

 

Actually sign him?

[Tryptamine]

still don't understand how anyone can be mad at the front office for this. they made him an offer on the very high end of what he's worth, and then theo himseld flew to miami to meet him face to face. what more could they have done?

 

Actually sign him?

 

So you would have signed Sanchez for 5/90? what about 6/96? At some point the contract no longer makes sense no matter how much people want their new toy right now.

[SouthSideRyan]

still don't understand how anyone can be mad at the front office for this. they made him an offer on the very high end of what he's worth, and then theo himseld flew to miami to meet him face to face. what more could they have done?

 

Actually sign him?

 

So you would have signed Sanchez for 5/90? what about 6/96? At some point the contract no longer makes sense no matter how much people want their new toy right now.

 

At some point you have to stop finishing in 2nd place and pay more (in prospects or cash) than you want to.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

 

First, Baker and Feldman are middle to back of the rotation starters that hve question marks attached to them. As for doing more than a lot of teams in free agency, the other teams didn't start with a 100-loss team.

 

We ended the season better than a 100 loss team, when you consider a pitcher like Garza coming back and Jeff S. not being shut down.

 

I stand by that the Cubs have been more active than most teams in free agency, and not because they had to be due to how bad they are perceived to be. There are a bunch of middle road teams/close to contending teams that have literally done nothing so far.

 

And like was said previously, it ain't over yet. I'd be shocked if the Cubs don't make one or two more nice moves. It won't be of the Josh Hamilton kind, so people will dismiss it or forget about it quickly when the Cubs miss out on one of their targets, but whatever.

[Guest]

The very high end of what he is worth is whatever he can get. That's the definition of a free market. There isn't any magic point where the dollars a guy can get make the a guy a bad player. It's just one of the more nonsensical memes that people spew who want to be the resident smart guys on a message board like this. People need to stop pretending it's ok when the Cubs lose out on good players.

 

At some point the Cubs are going to have to start landing some bigger fish.

 

Are you really taking the stance that there are no bad contracts?

No, but a bad contract does not make a good player bad. There are no championships for the most wins/dollar.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

The very high end of what he is worth is whatever he can get. That's the definition of a free market. There isn't any magic point where the dollars a guy can get make the a guy a bad player. It's just one of the more nonsensical memes that people spew who want to be the resident smart guys on a message board like this. People need to stop pretending it's ok when the Cubs lose out on good players.

 

At some point the Cubs are going to have to start landing some bigger fish.

 

Are you really taking the stance that there are no bad contracts?

No, but a bad contract does not make a good player bad. There are no championships for the most wins/dollar.

 

Not sure I agree with that. I always thought Fuki was a good ballplayer, but not $13.5 million good. So, while he was pretty good, his contract paid him like he needed to be really good due to what it did to the rest of the team. His contract made it less likely we could fill another hole.

[Backtobanks]

Also, saying that you want to see the Cubs be a little more active improving the 2013 team doesn't mean HEY GO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS LIKE THE ANGELS & DODGERS. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive.

 

It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

 

First, Baker and Feldman are middle to back of the rotation starters that hve question marks attached to them. As for doing more than a lot of teams in free agency, the other teams didn't start with a 100-loss team.

 

We ended the season better than a 100 loss team, when you consider a pitcher like Garza coming back and Jeff S. not being shut down.

 

I stand by that the Cubs have been more active than most teams in free agency, and not because they had to be due to how bad they are perceived to be. There are a bunch of middle road teams/close to contending teams that have literally done nothing so far.

 

And like was said previously, it ain't over yet. I'd be shocked if the Cubs don't make one or two more nice moves. It won't be of the Josh Hamilton kind, so people will dismiss it or forget about it quickly when the Cubs miss out on one of their targets, but whatever.

 

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

[Guest]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

 

Exactly.

[Backtobanks]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

 

Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.

[Rob]

The very high end of what he is worth is whatever he can get. That's the definition of a free market. There isn't any magic point where the dollars a guy can get make the a guy a bad player. It's just one of the more nonsensical memes that people spew who want to be the resident smart guys on a message board like this. People need to stop pretending it's ok when the Cubs lose out on good players.

 

At some point the Cubs are going to have to start landing some bigger fish.

 

Are you really taking the stance that there are no bad contracts?

No, but a bad contract does not make a good player bad. There are no championships for the most wins/dollar.

 

I haven't seen a ton of people around here suggesting the Cubs should cut payroll. The suggestion is merely that they should be attempting to get the most bang for their buck. Given the number of holes on the roster, it's not crazy to suggest the Cubs might be better with Edwin Jackson / Shaun Marcum and a decent reliever than spend it all on Anibal Sanchez.

 

I want them to spend money as much as anybody. I just want it spent well. Otherwise, we could have kept Hendry around.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

 

Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.

 

We are better now at this point than last season at this point. We have Rizzo now. Baker. Feldman. Our best pitching prospect. A new potential closer. Castro signed long term. Solar.

 

This time last year we did have Dempster and Marshall and Cashner. I'll say we have gotten better at this point than this point last year