Is The Ricketts Family the worst thing to...

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it credibly possible to (1) "stick to the plan" and (2) the Cubs not to stink next year?

 

I think so. On paper, the team this year shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been.

 

Not as bad, but still bad. They can't keep doing what they've been doing and be any good next year. The plan can stay the same, as long as that plan included trying next year.

[Exile on Waveland]

A benefit of building up the system is being able to trade for a player who can make an immediate impact. I think you underrate the FO's willingness to move highly rated prospects, Kyle, especially with a high pick coming this draft and potentially next to make up for the loss.

 

If this team is bad in 2014, I will turn against Theo, however.

 

I don't see the point of refusing to spend money because the team isn't ready for it, then later paying double for a single player like Price (in talent and then a contract extension) when the team is in just as bad a shape. Nor do I find it to be a likely scenario.

 

I have no doubt that they'll be willing to deal prospects in the general sense. I have a ton of doubt that they'll be doing it as a push to make the 2014 team competitive.

 

Considering all the moves the front office has and has not made, trading a bunch of prospects for David Price would be almost irrational.

[Guest]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

[XZero771679666304]

Is it credibly possible to (1) "stick to the plan" and (2) the Cubs not to stink next year?

 

I think so. On paper, the team this year shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been. I think it's an acquisition or two from being decent, especially if we retain Garza, which I think is increasingly likely. With a good offseason, I could see the Cubs being a wild card contender next year.

 

Well, first, people have been saying "the team . . . shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been" for going on two years. Sure, they're going to win more games than they're on pace for, but, either way, this team stinks.

 

Second, I've been arguing for quite awhile that a couple players could change a lot, but I'm not sure the necessary acquisitions fit in "the plan." I am a big fan of the Edwin Jackson signing, but I don't think two more similar additions is sufficient (other than hoping for 2012 Orioles luck--which is one reason we should all support such signings).

 

I see last year as being a slightly different scenario, since the whole thing was always going to be blown up. I'm sure we'll see some trades, but not a full on fire sale this year. I'd be stunned if this team actually loses a 100 games. Objectively, we saw a different approach taken this past offseason than we did the year prior, and I think we'll see the trend of adding MLB or MLB ready (long term) assets continue after this season.

 

I think we'll see at least one major trade of prospects for a high caliber MLB player.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

I'm sure the 2014 roster will be better than the 2013 roster the same way the 2013 roster was better than the 2012 roster. Is that really enough to avoid stinking? Because I have seen very little (implicit or explicit) that leads me to believe 2014 won't stink.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

You're so in denial

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is it credibly possible to (1) "stick to the plan" and (2) the Cubs not to stink next year?

 

I think so. On paper, the team this year shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been. I think it's an acquisition or two from being decent, especially if we retain Garza, which I think is increasingly likely. With a good offseason, I could see the Cubs being a wild card contender next year.

 

See, I think completely the opposite.

 

We have no impact prospects coming up next year. Logan Watkins looks like a utility player to me, Brett Jackson is still striking out 30% of the time at AAA, and counting on Junior Lake for anything is just spinning the roulette wheel. *Maybe* you can get some quality innings out of Vizcaino by that point? That's about it.

 

So the path from a 75-win team to a contender is going to have to come from an incredibly sparse FA class and a very crowded trade market.

 

It'd have to be something like:

Re-sign Garza

Trade for Price

Sign Ellsbury to replace DeJesus

Find another above-average bat in a trade that you can fit somewhere into the lineup (i.e. not SS or 1b)

Build an entire bullpen essentially from scratch plus maybe Fujikawa if he turns out to be good after all.

 

All that together probably takes you to an upper-80s win projection.

 

That's an A+ offseason that requires them to make some major commitments without knowing for certain that all the pieces will come through, and many of the pieces are long-shots.

 

It'd be much more consistent and seems much more likely to me that they'll simply say "We've waited this long, the impact prospects are coming up next year, let's replace Garza, make an Edwin Jackson-style signing and fill out the rest of the roster with bargains."

[Backtobanks]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Being good (or better) "on paper" doesn't seem to carry over to the play on the field. Look at how many times the Cubs were one of the better teams "on paper" during the last 10 years and then look at the results.

[Guest]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Being good (or better) "on paper" doesn't seem to carry over to the play on the field. Look at how many times the Cubs were one of the better teams "on paper" during the last 10 years and then look at the results.

 

Thank you for your input.

[illiniguy]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Being good (or better) "on paper" doesn't seem to carry over to the play on the field. Look at how many times the Cubs were one of the better teams "on paper" during the last 10 years and then look at the results.

03, 04, 07, 08, and 09 in the past decade. And of those years we had four good seasons. What am I missing here?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

And really, when we project the 2013 rotation, we need to include the near-ready pitching prospect we're getting from the Garza trade, right? :wink:

 

It's baseball. All we can do is project from what we have. Of course it's going to be somewhat futile. We can make all the careful projectioning we want, but then Jeff Samardzija turns into an ace, Marlon Byrd can't hit, Sammy Sosa hits 60 home runs, Corey Patterson washes out, Starlin Castro goes from interesting A-ball guy to .300 MLB hitter seemingly overnight, etc., whatever.

 

If the 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, it was by a very slim margin (and really it's only true because the roster they inherited literally had no players at several key positions). The 2013 roster *might* be a win or two better than the beginning 2012 roster, but you could easily call it a wash.

 

I expect they'll do something very similar for 2014. They'll make it worse at the trade deadline this year. Then they'll need to replace or re-sign (or pick up the options) on Garza, DeJesus and even Marmol. By the time they've done all that, they've eaten up most of their budget and have enough money leftover for one more marginal upgrade, something like Ellsbury over DeJesus. Then we'll project to win 79 games going into the season instead of 77 this year or 76 the year before, and I'll say something in the spring like "if you squint, it can be .500ish and maybe we'll get enough positive variance to be in the race."

 

Yeah, we don't know the exact particulars. If I were doing this exercise last year, I might assume we'll pick up Maholm's option and resigned Dempster. Instead we traded them and signed Villanueva and Feldman. Same difference.

 

The proponents of the front office's plan are right: It's incredibly hard to make significant gains in a single offseason without graduating impact prospects. and that's not something we're really getting until 2015. I thought 2011-12 was a unique exception because the free agent class was awesome, synergized well with our needs, and we all assumed/hoped we'd have $135-150m to play with. This year's offseason free agent class is brutal, our budget really does appear to be squeezed tight, and what is available doesn't really seem to fit our needs all that well. I can't see it happening.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Depends if Ricketts continues to do a Frank McCourt impersonation

[Guest]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Depends if Ricketts continues to do a Frank McCourt impersonation

 

Eh, we have 30 million in pending free agents who either haven't played an inning this year(Baker, Garza) or have not exactly provided difficult to replace production(Feldman, Marmol). They can likely add two 8 figure salaries, extend one of Rizzo or Samardzija, and take care of any other increases(the largest non-arbitration increase is 1 million, to Soler) without moving the total payroll at all.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Depends if Ricketts continues to do a Frank McCourt impersonation

 

Eh, we have 30 million in pending free agents who either haven't played an inning this year(Baker, Garza) or have not exactly provided difficult to replace production(Feldman, Marmol). They can likely add two 8 figure salaries, extend one of Rizzo or Samardzija, and take care of any other increases(the largest non-arbitration increase is 1 million, to Soler) without moving the total payroll at all.

 

Extend one of Rizzo or Samardzija is not one in the same.

 

And easily replaced production from the likes of Baker and Feldman is likely to cost at least as much as what Baker and Feldman cost this year.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Depends if Ricketts continues to do a Frank McCourt impersonation

 

Eh, we have 30 million in pending free agents who either haven't played an inning this year(Baker, Garza) or have not exactly provided difficult to replace production(Feldman, Marmol). They can likely add two 8 figure salaries, extend one of Rizzo or Samardzija, and take care of any other increases(the largest non-arbitration increase is 1 million, to Soler) without moving the total payroll at all.

 

I'm worried he's going to drop it further.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm confused, so now we're just assuming that nothing will be done to improve the MLB roster in the next 12 months? Or that everyone's 2014 projection matches their 2013? The 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, and the 2013 roster was better than 2012. But they're just going to say, "naw, we're good" to the near entirety of the roster come October?

 

Depends if Ricketts continues to do a Frank McCourt impersonation

 

Eh, we have 30 million in pending free agents who either haven't played an inning this year(Baker, Garza) or have not exactly provided difficult to replace production(Feldman, Marmol). They can likely add two 8 figure salaries, extend one of Rizzo or Samardzija, and take care of any other increases(the largest non-arbitration increase is 1 million, to Soler) without moving the total payroll at all.

 

I'm worried he's going to drop it further.

 

Me too. Honestly, my concern is more with the Ricketts than the FO in thinking that the former is in more over their heads than they were anticipating.

[Guest]

A benefit of building up the system is being able to trade for a player who can make an immediate impact. I think you underrate the FO's willingness to move highly rated prospects, Kyle, especially with a high pick coming this draft and potentially next to make up for the loss.

 

If this team is bad in 2014, I will turn against Theo, however.

 

I don't see the point of refusing to spend money because the team isn't ready for it, then later paying double for a single player like Price (in talent and then a contract extension) when the team is in just as bad a shape. Nor do I find it to be a likely scenario.

 

I have no doubt that they'll be willing to deal prospects in the general sense. I have a ton of doubt that they'll be doing it as a push to make the 2014 team competitive.

I don't think they are refusing to spend money because the team isn't ready. I think they think money is not worth the available talent. Theo and by extension the Ricketts seem to abhore free agency.

[Gilby]

A benefit of building up the system is being able to trade for a player who can make an immediate impact. I think you underrate the FO's willingness to move highly rated prospects, Kyle, especially with a high pick coming this draft and potentially next to make up for the loss.

 

If this team is bad in 2014, I will turn against Theo, however.

 

I don't see the point of refusing to spend money because the team isn't ready for it, then later paying double for a single player like Price (in talent and then a contract extension) when the team is in just as bad a shape. Nor do I find it to be a likely scenario.

 

I have no doubt that they'll be willing to deal prospects in the general sense. I have a ton of doubt that they'll be doing it as a push to make the 2014 team competitive.

 

They haven't refused to spend money. They were willing to go to $77 million on a single player and ended up signing Jackson to a decent sized deal.

 

Trades allow for more acquisitions of players in their 20s than free agency, so I don't think you can necessarily make a connection between not spending a ton in free agency and not making a big trade. As far as the likelihood of a Price or Stanton, some things certainly have to go right in our organization (Baez, I'm looking at you); I can agree with you that we should not count on a deal of that magnitude.

[jersey cubs fan]

They haven't refused to spend money. They were willing to go to $77 million on a single player and ended up signing Jackson to a decent sized deal.

 

Very true, they have actually spent money. The team is not only stocked with guys making the minimum. This isn't Miami, more like a frugal Cincinnati.

[davell]

Next years team will be decided, in part, with what goes on at the trade deadline. Garza could still bring back a cost-controlled piece that may become a fixture very shortly. Something that gets major league time this year anyway. Still have hope that Soriano could net a solid return(assuming we're paying most of his contract). Those are guys we hear about dealing often obviously.(Marmol too, but I can't see him bringing back anything to get us excited) But I think we'll deal more than just this group. One of Wood or Villanueva seems very possible to me and could bring back a very nice(Maholm type) trade. DeJesus could do the same, more if he comes remotely close to keeping up his start. Maybe Barney or Schierholtz? Possible. At any rate, things are likely to look much different on August 1. Top to bottom. We may have a few guys that are cost-controlled playing in the bigs or we may have added quite a bit more to the system(not counting draft) that allows us to make trades. Things suck-but its April 23rd. We have the continued development of certain major leaguers, (minors too) the draft, July 2nd, and the trade deadline. They're not going to sit on their asses. I fully and totally expect to feel much, much better about where things are headed on August 1.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Sure, we can't know exactly what things will look like after the deadline. But for 2014, the best-case scenario is that it doesn't get any worse and we only trade guys on expiring contracts. We're not getting back pieces that move the needle in 2014 for guys like Feldman or Marmol.

 

Sure, we might be able to get something for 2014 for Garza, but that just locks in the problem of replacing Garza, which is a bigger problem than anything you're likely to solve by trading him.

 

The possibilities for how the upcoming trading deadline affects 2014 are hard to pin down right now, but the scale seems to be from "no change" to "a decent amount worse."

[SouthSideRyan]

Next years team will be decided, in part, with what goes on at the trade deadline. Garza could still bring back a cost-controlled piece that may become a fixture very shortly. Something that gets major league time this year anyway. Still have hope that Soriano could net a solid return(assuming we're paying most of his contract). Those are guys we hear about dealing often obviously.(Marmol too, but I can't see him bringing back anything to get us excited) But I think we'll deal more than just this group. One of Wood or Villanueva seems very possible to me and could bring back a very nice(Maholm type) trade. DeJesus could do the same, more if he comes remotely close to keeping up his start. Maybe Barney or Schierholtz? Possible. At any rate, things are likely to look much different on August 1. Top to bottom. We may have a few guys that are cost-controlled playing in the bigs or we may have added quite a bit more to the system(not counting draft) that allows us to make trades. Things suck-but its April 23rd. We have the continued development of certain major leaguers, (minors too) the draft, July 2nd, and the trade deadline. They're not going to sit on their asses. I fully and totally expect to feel much, much better about where things are headed on August 1.

 

Jesus, I thought the outlook was bleak without trading a bunch of those guys away. Look at all those holes you're creating so you can horde more non top 100 prospects.

[davell]

Its likely we'll shop Garza, Soriano, and DeJesus. All I'm adding to that is one of Wood or Villanueva, and possibly one of Schierholtz or Barney. The return on any of that group would have to be very, very solid. It wouldn't be to horde non top 100 type prospects(maybe Schierholtz). Is the possibility we trade one of that group likely? I think I'd take that bet.

[dew1679666265]

I think one of the biggest problems facing this team right now is a lack of mid-tier FAs. Clearly we've either not had the money or the desire for the big money guys (Pujols, Prince, Wilson, etc) so debating that at this point is pretty meaningless.

 

However, it seems like in the first year it was an all-or-nothing sort of outlook because of that. What I liked so much about this past offseason was that we picked up guys who can be useful for multiple seasons (Jackson, Fujikawa, Villanueva) as well as the sign and trade guys. The problem is, we've not done anywhere near enough of that. Just off the top of my head we passed on Wei-Yin Chen 2 years ago and showed no interest in BJ Upton last year. Neither would have solved all of our problems, but both would have been quality contributors for multiple years at reasonable (for their talent level) prices (Chen is probably a major bargain).

 

Instead we've focused on the sign and trade types (Baker, Feldman, Maholm) only and have to put forth great effort each offseason just to tread water or make slight improvements. The sign and trade guys are important as well (Maholm helped get us Vizcaino, for instance), but they shouldn't be the focus of an offseason.

 

Just because you realize you're going to suck doesn't mean you can't make incremental improvements that will benefit you over multiple years and that's what I think this front office has missed on the most so far. I still think they're going to get this figured out, but I think because they started out so single-minded it's going to take longer than any of us will like.

[davell]

The problem with that is we aren't sure we had the money to spend this past offseason to do more than we did. Sounds ridiculous, but it coukd have been an either/or situation between adding one solid bat or pitcher.