2014 Roster Discussion

[pitchcs]

Bernstein talking about the Passan blurb now if anyone wants to listen.

 

Wow, they ripped it.

[CubsWin]

So, we are dealing in the real world now. Do you want the Cubs to beat the Yankees offer of 7 years and $153 million?

 

Depends on what real world you're talking about. If it's "real world" where Cubs can't afford more than 85M payroll, then no, I probably wouldn't sign Ellsbury to 7/160. If it's actual real world, then yes, I absolutely would.

I'm talking about the same real world as you are. In that real world I'd rather spend the money on a 25 year old TOR pitcher than 30 year old OFer. Or do you doubt the Cubs sincerity to do everything they can to sign Tanaka and think they're just being cheapskates? I think Tanaka fits better into the Cubs plan. I think it's wiser to spend money on likely future performance than past performance. Do we disagree?

 

My point is in the real world, there's no reason it needs to be an either-or proposition. And when we wind up with Jason [expletive] Hammel as the crown jewel of our offseason it's going to be that much more annoying that we forced it to be.

In the real world, it's almost always an either-or-proposition. In the real world, funds aren't unlimited. When was the last time the Cubs went out and signed the top two most sought after and expensive free agents on the market? When was the last time the Cubs did something close to that and fans were pleased with the result?

 

Theo & Co. have patiently worked to get this very valuable commodity called financial flexibility. And, we agree the only reason to have it is to use it. My point is what makes the difference between building a long term winning organization or a flash in the pan is who you choose to exhaust your resources to acquire.

 

The choice isn't between one or the other necessarily. Given enough financial flexibility and two players that fit what your team is looking for, the Cubs could get both. The choice is what kind of player do you want to acquire at this stage of a rebuild. A very good 30 year old OFer with a recent history of injury and some offensive inconsistency resulting in an career OPS of .789 thus far. Or a 25 year old, potential TOR pitcher who hasn't thrown one pitch in the major leagues but has been lights out in a league similar to AAA+ consistently over the last several seasons and about whom your scouts have glowing reports.

 

We don't have to agree on which one. Legit arguments could be made for either. But that's the choice. Not one or the other or both or none. But what kind of player is worth diminishing your financial flexibility for? You say go all in and outspend the Yankees for Ellsbury. I say do that for Tanaka.

[CubsWin]

If they offer Tanaka the biggest contract and he turns them down for non-monetary reasons (which I think is a distinct possibility), I will be disappointed, but it will alleviate at least some of my fear that there just isn't any money there.

 

You'll never know if that is the case though, and any reports suggesting it to be the case will be suspect.

 

That is why the only thing that matters is if they actually do sign the guy. We can hear about interest and offers, and the willingness to spend, but as long as the actual spending does not go up, I don't see any way to take solace in the notion that they would theoretically spend more in a different world.

 

The money is there. That much is obvious. The willingness to allow it to be spent is the question.

And if there was a report that said that the Cubs bid was $50 million less than the winning bid and that management was held back on orders from ownership, we should just dismiss that one, too?

[CubsWin]

I think the interest in Tanaka is similar to the interest in every other top free agent. Make an effort, hope nobody else pays him what he's worth and hope they can pay him less than everyone expects him to get. If by some miracle we wound up with him, I think Samardzija would be gone within a couple weeks if we can't find a taker for Jackson.

Because some team out there would all of a sudden be willing to give the Cubs what they have been asking for in return for Samardzija? Or because the Cubs management is incompetent and the ownership is cheap?

[davell]

I doubt anyone prefers Ellsbury to Tanaka. And my guess is everyone is happy with the state of our system. The problem is why do we have to choose between Ellsbury and Tanaka in the first place? Obviously, we know the debt structure, the fact the renovations haven't begun yet, etc. and I've been firmly in the camp of the rebuild. But we are a major market team with a bottom 5 payroll. If we wanted to, we should be able to add THREE 20 mill a year type contracts to what we've got currently and not think twice about it.

 

Just an example, I'm not advocating we should have added 60 mill in payroll this offseason. But one here, one there, one next year type stuff would have been fine by me. But Ricketts can't do that and that's what sucks .With the Passan piece from earlier, I feel extremely confident that was what Theo thought he'd have the ability to do as well.

[CubsWin]

I doubt anyone prefers Ellsbury to Tanaka. And my guess is everyone is happy with the state of our system. The problem is why do we have to choose between Ellsbury and Tanaka in the first place? Obviously, we know the debt structure, the fact the renovations haven't begun yet, etc. and I've been firmly in the camp of the rebuild. But we are a major market team with a bottom 5 payroll. If we wanted to, we should be able to add THREE 20 mill a year type contracts to what we've got currently and not think twice about it.

 

Just an example, I'm not advocating we should have added 60 mill in payroll this offseason. But one here, one there, one next year type stuff would have been fine by me. But Ricketts can't do that and that's what sucks .With the Passan piece from earlier, I feel extremely confident that was what Theo thought he'd have the ability to do as well.

We are essentially saying the same thing here. From my post above:

 

The choice isn't between one or the other necessarily. Given enough financial flexibility and two players that fit what your team is looking for, the Cubs could get both. The choice is what kind of player do you want to acquire at this stage of a rebuild.

That's not where SSR's and my discussion started, however. It was more about what should the Cubs have done differently thus far this off season given the state of the rebuild. But I agree, it would be nice if the Cubs had a lot more money to spend than they currently do. I think any fan of any team would think the same thing. How much they actually have to spend is not public knowledge though, is it?

[CubsWin]

Bernstein talking about the Passan blurb now if anyone wants to listen.

 

Wow, they ripped it.

It's pretty rip-able.

[jersey cubs fan]

If they offer Tanaka the biggest contract and he turns them down for non-monetary reasons (which I think is a distinct possibility), I will be disappointed, but it will alleviate at least some of my fear that there just isn't any money there.

 

You'll never know if that is the case though, and any reports suggesting it to be the case will be suspect.

 

That is why the only thing that matters is if they actually do sign the guy. We can hear about interest and offers, and the willingness to spend, but as long as the actual spending does not go up, I don't see any way to take solace in the notion that they would theoretically spend more in a different world.

 

The money is there. That much is obvious. The willingness to allow it to be spent is the question.

And if there was a report that said that the Cubs bid was $50 million less than the winning bid and that management was held back on orders from ownership, we should just dismiss that one, too?

The onus is on them to actually spend, not just have reporters indicate they were willing to spend.

[CubsWin]

If they offer Tanaka the biggest contract and he turns them down for non-monetary reasons (which I think is a distinct possibility), I will be disappointed, but it will alleviate at least some of my fear that there just isn't any money there.

 

You'll never know if that is the case though, and any reports suggesting it to be the case will be suspect.

 

That is why the only thing that matters is if they actually do sign the guy. We can hear about interest and offers, and the willingness to spend, but as long as the actual spending does not go up, I don't see any way to take solace in the notion that they would theoretically spend more in a different world.

 

The money is there. That much is obvious. The willingness to allow it to be spent is the question.

And if there was a report that said that the Cubs bid was $50 million less than the winning bid and that management was held back on orders from ownership, we should just dismiss that one, too?

The onus is on them to actually spend, not just have reporters indicate they were willing to spend.

I'm sorry, that's just positional crazy talk setting yourself up for an "I told you so" when the likely event of the Cubs not getting Tanaka comes to pass.

 

They can't force Tanaka to come to Chicago if he wants to pitch on the west coast or for the hallowed Yankees or the champion Red Sox. The onus is on them to go as far with the money as they can before it just becomes stupid to offer more. Everything else is out of their hands. Whether you are open to believe the stories reported on what was offered is up to you. Personally, if the reports are that they shorted the rest of the field or didn't push their offer outside the comfort zone of player value, I'll believe it and be very disappointed.

 

As far as spending in general, the onus is on them to spend it in a way that will build a healthy franchise that wins on a consistent basis and gives the Cubs their best chance of winning a world series. It's not about winning as quickly as possible. It's not about appeasing impatient (rightfully or wrongfully) fans. It's about winning a world series. Hopefully more than one, and that means getting to the playoffs consistently. We are all allowed to have different levels of patience with that process and have differing opinions on what types of players would best build a healthy franchise that won't be a flash in the pan.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's a lot of excuse-making for baseball limbo when it would seemingly be much easier to say "what's mainly out of their hands is how bad the Ricketts are as owners and as such there's not much of a pitch they can make to a FA outside of money."

[CubsWin]

That's a lot of excuse-making for baseball limbo when it would seemingly be much easier to say "what's mainly out of their hands is how bad the Ricketts are as owners and as such there's not much of a pitch they can make to a FA outside of money."

If it's true they don't have the money to make a strong offer, then I agree. Otherwise, what may sound like excuse making to some could actually be the lack of whitewashing the complexities of the business and a lack of angry pessimism.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's a lot of excuse-making for baseball limbo when it would seemingly be much easier to say "what's mainly out of their hands is how bad the Ricketts are as owners and as such there's not much of a pitch they can make to a FA outside of money."

If it's true they don't have the money to make a strong offer, then I agree. Otherwise, what may sound like excuse making to some could actually be the lack of whitewashing the complexities of the business and a lack of angry pessimism.

 

Even if they have the money they're still way behind the curve in terms of what they can offer, unless they have the money to basically annihilate any other team's deal.

[davell]

I do think the plan was to tank 2012. As long as that went down, we'd basically have the exact same system we've got currently. If we had money, I think we WOULD have been active last offseason AND this one.

 

Add Annibal, Bourn, and Tanaka to this team and all that would have changed is we wouldn't have Zastryzny and instead of the 4th pick, we likely would have the 12th or so in 2014. Our payroll would be in the 125 range or so and we'd still have had all the youngsters coming up. But we'd have a current lineup with Bourn at the top, with a rotation of Annibal, Tanaka, Shark, Edwin, and Wood-which would be one of the better rotations on paper, in the NL.

 

With a payroll in the 125 range, Soriano falling off still, it would have STILL given us room for 2 more 20 mill type bats and keep us well under the luxury tax. Would we have contended in 2014 with those moves? Probably not, but if Javy and/or Bryant were to come up and hit, then it'd have been conceivable. A Stanton addition midseason could have done the trick as well, involving Almora and Soler, plus Edwards or Johnson......The system, post Javy/KB graduation and a trade moving Almora, Soler, and CJ at once would still honestly be middle of the pack. With Alcantara, Johnson, Vogelbach, and the 1st rounder all being top 100 guys at this time next year and a stocked lower level with all the IFA guys, Candelario, Blackburn, and others having ability to develop into legit talents.

 

 

I think something more along those lines is what Theo had in mind, instead of having to watch and hope the majority of our minor leaguers pan out, with all the top end guys getting major league time here(it's coming, Vogelbach's the only one I see getting dealt), some struggling and being lucky if we're true contenders by 2016.

 

If we headed into next offseason with a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Stanton, Javy, Bryant, Castillo, and needing a FA OFer, with the staff I had mentioned-Annibal, Tanaka, Shark, Edwin, Wood.....We'd be looking pretty good for the future and much closer than we are currently. All it would have taken is money......

[CubsWin]

I do think the plan was to tank 2012. As long as that went down, we'd basically have the exact same system we've got currently. If we had money, I think we WOULD have been active last offseason AND this one.

 

Add Annibal, Bourn, and Tanaka to this team and all that would have changed is we wouldn't have Zastryzny and instead of the 4th pick, we likely would have the 12th or so in 2014. Our payroll would be in the 125 range or so and we'd still have had all the youngsters coming up. But we'd have a current lineup with Bourn at the top, with a rotation of Annibal, Tanaka, Shark, Edwin, and Wood-which would be one of the better rotations on paper, in the NL.

 

With a payroll in the 125 range, Soriano falling off still, it would have STILL given us room for 2 more 20 mill type bats and keep us well under the luxury tax. Would we have contended in 2014 with those moves? Probably not, but if Javy and/or Bryant were to come up and hit, then it'd have been conceivable. A Stanton addition midseason could have done the trick as well, involving Almora and Soler, plus Edwards or Johnson......The system, post Javy/KB graduation and a trade moving Almora, Soler, and CJ at once would still honestly be middle of the pack. With Alcantara, Johnson, Vogelbach, and the 1st rounder all being top 100 guys at this time next year and a stocked lower level with all the IFA guys, Candelario, Blackburn, and others having ability to develop into legit talents.

 

 

I think something more along those lines is what Theo had in mind, instead of having to watch and hope the majority of our minor leaguers pan out, with all the top end guys getting major league time here(it's coming, Vogelbach's the only one I see getting dealt), some struggling and being lucky if we're true contenders by 2016.

 

If we headed into next offseason with a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Stanton, Javy, Bryant, Castillo, and needing a FA OFer, with the staff I had mentioned-Annibal, Tanaka, Shark, Edwin, Wood.....We'd be looking pretty good for the future and much closer than we are currently. All it would have taken is money......

That's quite possibly true. It's oversimplifying it, though. It would have taken a lot more than just spending money to get that line-up and rotation.

 

We'd have to assume that Theo & Jed wanted Bourn and Bourn wanted to play for the Cubs. We'll never know for sure but here's what Jed said after he signed with Cleveland.

ESPN.com[/url]"]“There was dialogue with (agent) Scott Boras,” Hoyer told Talking Baseball on ESPN 1000. “I think Michael Bourn is a really good player … He was a player we talked about … We didn’t get that serious but given the quality of the player he is we did have dialogue.”

We know they wanted Anibal, but Anibal might have wanted to play for a team closer to contending which is what he eventually chose, and his agent may have been using the Cubs desire to sign him to drive the price up for the Tigers. And once the Tigers hit their ceiling, their final offer, his agent would jump on it and close the deal. According to reports leading up to his signing with the Tigers that appears to be exactly what happened.

MLBTradeRumors.com[/url]"]FRIDAY, 8:03am: The Cubs have increased their offer to $77.5MM, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports (on Twitter). The Tigers have offered the right-hander $75MM.

 

THURSDAY, 10:45pm: Sanchez won't make a decision tonight and will continue talking with both the Cubs and Tigers tomorrow, reports Bob Nightengale (via Twitter).

 

6:10pm: If the Tigers do top the Cubs' offer, USA Today's Bob Nightengale says Sanchez will sign with Detroit, thus seemingly shutting the Cubs out of a chance to counter. The Tigers had offered a four-year contract to Sanchez, Nightengale says, and CBS Sports' Danny Knobler adds that Detroit was believed to be hesitant to go to five years for Sanchez (both Twitter links).

Of course, the big assumption is that Tanaka will simply sign with whoever offers him the most money and other factors won't matter. That may indeed happen. (I hope it does if it's the Cubs.) But right now, we can only speculate.

 

We'd also have to assume the Cubs scouts and front office evaluated Stanton's health and tools to a point where they'd give up whom you suggest and, more importantly, that the Marlins would have taken it considering Stanton's low cost and ability to be the cornerstone they need to build on. All quite possible, but not sure things. After all, it didn't happen. And it wouldn't have been because of money concerns, so either it was never imagined or they did consider it and one side or both didn't want to do it.

 

But yes, spending more money would most likely have resulted in a better team last year and this year. I don't think anyone would deny that. The question is who would the Cubs have been able to get with their money and would acquiring those players be a wise allocation of resources considering the goal of winning one or multiple championships?

[jersey cubs fan]

I love how blind support for doing it the right way involved winning consistently, which completely ignored all the losing consistently in the meantime. The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

[Ryne Ween]

I remember here when there was a 500 page thread here about Brian Roberts. That was because (i) people gave a [expletive] about the cubs and they dont anymore because its very hard to care about a team that mathematically eliminated by Easter and and (ii) we had an MLB roster that had such few holes in it that something as granular as a marginal upgrade at second base was extremely exciting.

[CubsWin]

The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

Wow. I never even thought that much less tried to insinuate it. Let's keep it to baseball matters and steer away from the personal, agreed?

[bukie]

I love how blind support for doing it the right way involved winning consistently, which completely ignored all the losing consistently in the meantime. The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

Being a cynic doesn't make you smarter or right either, as much as you try to insinuate.

[imb]

every awesome dewd is actually a miserable [expletive], that's why mojo and goony won the best poster tournament

[Sammy Sofa]

BRING IT BACK BRING IT BACK BRING IT BACK

[NOLA]

I love how blind support for doing it the right way involved winning consistently, which completely ignored all the losing consistently in the meantime. The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

Being a cynic doesn't make you smarter or right either, as much as you try to insinuate.

 

Thank you for this post. Absolutely.

[jersey cubs fan]

I love how blind support for doing it the right way involved winning consistently, which completely ignored all the losing consistently in the meantime. The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

Being a cynic doesn't make you smarter or right either, as much as you try to insinuate.

 

Yes, because it is somehow cynical to be disappointed in how much the Cubs are losing.

[bukie]

I love how blind support for doing it the right way involved winning consistently, which completely ignored all the losing consistently in the meantime. The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

Being a cynic doesn't make you smarter or right either, as much as you try to insinuate.

 

Yes, because it is somehow cynical to be disappointed in how much the Cubs are losing.

No, because it is cynical to assume the worst in everything the Cubs are doing.

[Guest]

I love how blind support for doing it the right way involved winning consistently, which completely ignored all the losing consistently in the meantime. The fact that you aren't angry at the cubs doesn't make you a better person as much as you try to insinuate.

Being a cynic doesn't make you smarter or right either, as much as you try to insinuate.

 

Yes, because it is somehow cynical to be disappointed in how much the Cubs are losing.

No, because it is cynical to assume the worst in everything the Cubs are doing.

It's just been one happy [expletive] turn of events after another since the Ricketts bought the Cubs. I can't imagine why anyone would be dissatisfied. "The process" has been a fun ride so far. I can't wait for the draft again this year.

[Guest]

All the really smart people know results don't matter except when they do matter at some point in the not too distant future.