2014 Roster Discussion

[Guest]

I'd like to see the TT sell job on oh well we missed on Tanaka, BUT we are getting Scott Baker again

 

That's more prediction than hope. I guess they could be in on Ubaldo or Garza, but I don't think it's that likely. There's a reason my Plan B for Tanaka was "there is no Plan B" back in the Plan the Offseason thread.

I really like Ubaldo.

[Guest]

I'd like to see the TT sell job on oh well we missed on Tanaka, BUT we are getting Scott Baker again

 

That's more prediction than hope. I guess they could be in on Ubaldo or Garza, but I don't think it's that likely. There's a reason my Plan B for Tanaka was "there is no Plan B" back in the Plan the Offseason thread.

I really like Ubaldo.

 

I like Ubaldo best of the FA options, but I go back and forth on whether I think they should go after him given the likely cost.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't think they have any desire to give up 1M+ in draft pool.

[UK1679666180]

I'd like to see the TT sell job on oh well we missed on Tanaka, BUT we are getting Scott Baker again

 

That's more prediction than hope. I guess they could be in on Ubaldo or Garza, but I don't think it's that likely. There's a reason my Plan B for Tanaka was "there is no Plan B" back in the Plan the Offseason thread.

I really like Ubaldo.

 

I like Ubaldo best of the FA options, but I go back and forth on whether I think they should go after him given the likely cost.

 

I agree with SSR on this one, also, I don't think Ubaldo is worth what he will receive as a FA, he's 30, coming off of his best season since '10.

 

If they're going cheap, I like Capuano as the Scott Baker of 2014.

[CubsWin]

So despite all my disappointment in this off season to date, would it have been wise for the Cubs to do more than they have (outside of possibly shoring up the back end of the rotation with guys like Hammel and Baker) with so many wait-and-see questions yet to be answered?

 

My answer to that question is yes, it would have been wise to try and do more to make the 2014 roster better.

So who do you sign and why?

 

Ellsbury and one of a host of starting pitchers who aren't Scott Baker or some other such rehab/flier [expletive]. Because they're good players.

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?

[Guest]

I'd like to see the TT sell job on oh well we missed on Tanaka, BUT we are getting Scott Baker again

 

That's more prediction than hope. I guess they could be in on Ubaldo or Garza, but I don't think it's that likely. There's a reason my Plan B for Tanaka was "there is no Plan B" back in the Plan the Offseason thread.

I really like Ubaldo.

 

I like Ubaldo best of the FA options, but I go back and forth on whether I think they should go after him given the likely cost.

 

I agree with SSR on this one, also, I don't think Ubaldo is worth what he will receive as a FA, he's 30, coming off of his best season since '10.

 

If they're going cheap, I like Capuano as the Scott Baker of 2014.

I'm not sure any pitcher whos's decent and still a FA will be worth the contract. Ubaldo was injured and now he's healthy and IMO he's the best option to make the Cubs better. At this point they need to get players who are good and worry about value second.

[davell]

I would have had no issue if we had given Ellsbury the contract he got. Hell, if it took a mill more per year, in order to get him, I'd have done it. And followed it up with Ubaldo, assuming we missed on Tanaka.

 

That said, we didn't get Ellsbury and we likely won't get Tanaka. By missing on Ellsbury, I'm NOT in favor of giving up the 2nd rounder for Ubaldo. If we'd have gotten Ellsbury, I'd give up the 2nd and the 3rd, due to it giving you a fairly realistic shot at making noise in 2014. Ubaldo by himself? To me, that doesn't do it, nor do I think Ubaldo is a guy we can't acquire any offseason. I'd rather take a chance on Garza or a stopgap at this point.

 

The draft is strong, so since we didn't go all in, I don't want to do it for just Ubaldo. We're not likely to compete this year(with or without him) and if we don't get bounce back years from a few guys and solid debuts from others(we can bitch all we want) but 2015 doesn't look all that great, barring a legit spending spree that I honestly don't see coming.

 

So why spend on Ubaldo now, when it's very possible we're looking at season 3 of him before we're contenders? Hold off, keep the pick, and sign your Ubaldo guy later. Unless you trust Garza moving forward if you don't trust him, just sign a stopgap. In all honesty, my guess is we can find a 2 WAR SP available on a 1 year deal. And in my opinion, we're not close enough to give a guy 4/60 or so, to gain what I figure is one win during the first two years of that deal and maybe not anything extra in the 2 years we're likely to contend.

 

If we had done more earlier, my opinion would be different, but Ubaldo doesn't make sense for us in our current state.

[SouthSideRyan]

But why waste money on a 2 WAR guy for 1 year? We already know we're not going to win anything this 1 year. Every win gained this year is worse draft position and less IFA money

[SouthSideRyan]

So despite all my disappointment in this off season to date, would it have been wise for the Cubs to do more than they have (outside of possibly shoring up the back end of the rotation with guys like Hammel and Baker) with so many wait-and-see questions yet to be answered?

 

My answer to that question is yes, it would have been wise to try and do more to make the 2014 roster better.

So who do you sign and why?

 

Ellsbury and one of a host of starting pitchers who aren't Scott Baker or some other such rehab/flier [expletive]. Because they're good players.

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.

[davell]

But why waste money on a 2 WAR guy for 1 year? We already know we're not going to win anything this 1 year. Every win gained this year is worse draft position and less IFA money

He'll be traded mid season anyway, but the reason is we don't have a 5th starter currently. In the "piece things together over time" way, I guess Hendricks takes over for the stopgap when he's dealt.

[USSoccer]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

[NOLA]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

Apples and oranges. By the time Javy is due to become a free agent one would hope that we are then trying to sustain our success, not add a high dollar free agent to a steaming pile of dung. The financial situation should also be much improved by then.

[davell]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

This is a ridiculous post. One, you'd do everything humanly possible to lock Javy and whoever else up early, ala Castro and Rizzo. Secondly, in case you hadn't noticed, we appear to be in a legit money crunch, due to ownership. Whether it's because they can't or won't spend.... That is up for debate, I suppose, but it's beyond obvious they aren't, either way.

 

I seriously doubt anyone here wouldn't love to have a 150 mill+ payroll right now. But it's not happening anytime soon(new TV deal/renovation money) and it's quite allright to be cautious currently, when we MAY have the money to go after one relatively large contract. Tanaka makes total sense, based on age and upside. A guy like Ubaldo? He's got neither of those things going for him.

[USSoccer]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

Apples and oranges. By the time Javy is due to become a free agent one would hope that we are then trying to sustain our success, not add a high dollar free agent to a steaming pile of dung. The financial situation should also be much improved by then.

 

I'm just curious how it's apples to oranges...talent is talent, no? Adding a good player is not any different than retaining one; both help you get closer to your goal of winning. Adding Ellsbury to the current pile of offensive crap makes it less bad, doesn't it?

[USSoccer]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

This is a ridiculous post. One, you'd do everything humanly possible to lock Javy and whoever else up early, ala Castro and Rizzo. Secondly, in case you hadn't noticed, we appear to be in a legit money crunch, due to ownership. Whether it's because they can't or won't spend.... That is up for debate, I suppose, but it's beyond obvious they aren't, either way.

 

I seriously doubt anyone here wouldn't love to have a 150 mill+ payroll right now. But it's not happening anytime soon(new TV deal/renovation money) and it's quite allright to be cautious currently, when we MAY have the money to go after one relatively large contract. Tanaka makes total sense, based on age and upside. A guy like Ubaldo? He's got neither of those things going for him.

 

This is exactly how I thought some would respond. Is there any guarantee at all that our stupid broke owner will somehow be more willing to spend in 2 years? 3? Do you have any confidence that any of the renovations will be close to done?

 

None of those things-the TV deal, the renovations-are guaranteed to be resolved in the near to medium future, so basically the entire organization gets put in a holding pattern?

 

Why would Tanaka want to come to a team that is completely handicapped and unlikely to contend due to fiscal constraints for the first 2-3 years of his deal?

 

It's a cycle of suck that feeds on itself. We can't or won't spend, so we end up with a mediocre or worse product that doesn't generate as much in-season revenue as it would if it were good, which means we can't spend money, which means we can't bring in talent. Getting Ellsbury would have helped a ton, but he cost a lot, so that was out. Tanaka is no sure thing, but he'll probably be good, and signing him would help a ton. But again, why would he come here?

[davell]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

This is a ridiculous post. One, you'd do everything humanly possible to lock Javy and whoever else up early, ala Castro and Rizzo. Secondly, in case you hadn't noticed, we appear to be in a legit money crunch, due to ownership. Whether it's because they can't or won't spend.... That is up for debate, I suppose, but it's beyond obvious they aren't, either way.

 

I seriously doubt anyone here wouldn't love to have a 150 mill+ payroll right now. But it's not happening anytime soon(new TV deal/renovation money) and it's quite allright to be cautious currently, when we MAY have the money to go after one relatively large contract. Tanaka makes total sense, based on age and upside. A guy like Ubaldo? He's got neither of those things going for him.

 

This is exactly how I thought some would respond. Is there any guarantee at all that our stupid broke owner will somehow be more willing to spend in 2 years? 3? Do you have any confidence that any of the renovations will be close to done?

 

None of those things-the TV deal, the renovations-are guaranteed to be resolved in the near to medium future, so basically the entire organization gets put in a holding pattern?

 

Why would Tanaka want to come to a team that is completely handicapped and unlikely to contend due to fiscal constraints for the first 2-3 years of his deal?

 

It's a cycle of suck that feeds on itself. We can't or won't spend, so we end up with a mediocre or worse product that doesn't generate as much in-season revenue as it would if it were good, which means we can't spend money, which means we can't bring in talent. Getting Ellsbury would have helped a ton, but he cost a lot, so that was out. Tanaka is no sure thing, but he'll probably be good, and signing him would help a ton. But again, why would he come here?

 

Supposedly, the first part of the renovations help pay for the rest of them. A TV deal is on the horizon, within 2 years, even its a marginal upgrade until the full deal can be explored in 2019.

 

If we can't spend, what exactly do YOU want? Shoot our wad on one marginal large name right now and then watch us win 65-70 games anyway until our youngsters develop enough to change things? We've likely got room to add ONE big contract, why are you so antsy to do it, just because we can? With or without that guy, 2014 is a lost cause in all likelihood. I wouldn't have minded Ellsbury honestly, but that ship sailed. There's no one else out of this class I'm pissed about losing out on, thats for sure(not counting the inevitable loss of Tanaka)

 

The bottom line is we are where we are and we're in wait mode until these prospects are up and developing. It's certainly not ideal, but we may as well be smart about it. Spending 20 mill on a guy is great and I really, really want to spend it on Tanaka, but if we miss on him, I'm not just going to spend it because I've got it. I'll hold off until next year and hopefully get whichever FA or traded guy then. Because we aren't going anywhere this year, unless a miracle happens.

[USSoccer]

 

Supposedly, the first part of the renovations help pay for the rest of them. A TV deal is on the horizon, within 2 years, even its a marginal upgrade until the full deal can be explored in 2019.

 

If we can't spend, what exactly do YOU want? Shoot our wad on one marginal large name right now and then watch us win 65-70 games anyway until our youngsters develop enough to change things? We've likely got room to add ONE big contract, why are you so antsy to do it, just because we can? With or without that guy, 2014 is a lost cause in all likelihood. I wouldn't have minded Ellsbury honestly, but that ship sailed. There's no one else out of this class I'm pissed about losing out on, thats for sure(not counting the inevitable loss of Tanaka)

 

The bottom line is we are where we are and we're in wait mode until these prospects are up and developing. It's certainly not ideal, but we may as well be smart about it. Spending 20 mill on a guy is great and I really, really want to spend it on Tanaka, but if we miss on him, I'm not just going to spend it because I've got it. I'll hold off until next year and hopefully get whichever FA or traded guy then. Because we aren't going anywhere this year, unless a miracle happens.

 

No, I agree; at this point, unless you get Tanaka there's really nothing left out there worth spending money on; certainly not fricking Ubaldo Jimenez. Ellsbury was the one offensive piece that I thought would be an ideal fit, but that ship sailed. I don't believe for a minute we're going to sign Tanaka.

 

There's no reason to spend just for the sake of it, but when opportunities to sign guys who can be good both now and when the vaunted wave of prospects arrive come up, you'd like to see the Cubs at least get ONE of the guys instead of being perpetually just missing out.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus, who knows; maybe signing someone like Ellsbury would show someone like Tanaka this is maybe a team worth signing with instead of a hot garbage fire with a terrifying future. I mean, I know people like to say guys are going to sign wherever the money is, but when there's multiple teams with money to burn you have to actually have something that makes someone want to come here, and making moves where it looks like you're maybe trying (and obviously Ellsbury alone wouldn't be that) could actually go a long way.

 

Seriously, why would anyone here think the Cubs have a real shot at Tanaka? The terrible team that could be even worse this year? Basically completely gambling on prospects for the future? The ownership that can't even fix up the laughably bad facilities?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[davell]

Well [expletive], we agree then. Unfortunately on not getting Tanaka as well.

[CubsWin]

So who do you sign and why?

 

Ellsbury and one of a host of starting pitchers who aren't Scott Baker or some other such rehab/flier [expletive]. Because they're good players.

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?

[Gilby]

I have no confidence Tanaka would pick us if the money is similar as other teams are offering. I mean there are a few positives we could offer, such as shorter travel to away games since we're in the midwest and having the potential to be the biggest star on the team. However, those are more than outweighed by shitty facilities and a shitty roster. The little hope I have comes from thinking how desperate the FO has to feel right now. I'm thinking something like a few extremely player-friendly player options at the tail end of the deal so he feels protected against injury (very possible, especially with his workload) or busting (less likely, as long as he's on the field). Do the expected 5-6 yrs for 100-120 MM and throw in a couple 15 MM player options. That would suck if his shoulder breaks, but we kinda need this signing.

 

Despite what I've read a few times from people in the media, the Yankees aren't the most desperate team involved; they strike me as much more likely to just say "[expletive] it" and sign one of the big 3 FA pitchers left - Santana/Ubaldo/Garza than, say, the Cubs. The Cubs backup plan is most likely Hammel or Baker.

[Guest]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

This is a ridiculous post. One, you'd do everything humanly possible to lock Javy and whoever else up early, ala Castro and Rizzo. Secondly, in case you hadn't noticed, we appear to be in a legit money crunch, due to ownership. Whether it's because they can't or won't spend.... That is up for debate, I suppose, but it's beyond obvious they aren't, either way.

 

I seriously doubt anyone here wouldn't love to have a 150 mill+ payroll right now. But it's not happening anytime soon(new TV deal/renovation money) and it's quite allright to be cautious currently, when we MAY have the money to go after one relatively large contract. Tanaka makes total sense, based on age and upside. A guy like Ubaldo? He's got neither of those things going for him.

 

And even if you didn't lock him up early (which is what I foresee happening with most of these guys if/when they show something in the majors), an actual superstar hitting free agency for the first time in his mid 20's is a completely different story.

 

I don't think anyone here would be opposed to backing up the Brinks truck for Mike Trout.

[SouthSideRyan]

So who do you sign and why?

 

Ellsbury and one of a host of starting pitchers who aren't Scott Baker or some other such rehab/flier [expletive]. Because they're good players.

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.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

This is a ridiculous post. One, you'd do everything humanly possible to lock Javy and whoever else up early, ala Castro and Rizzo. Secondly, in case you hadn't noticed, we appear to be in a legit money crunch, due to ownership. Whether it's because they can't or won't spend.... That is up for debate, I suppose, but it's beyond obvious they aren't, either way.

 

I seriously doubt anyone here wouldn't love to have a 150 mill+ payroll right now. But it's not happening anytime soon(new TV deal/renovation money) and it's quite allright to be cautious currently, when we MAY have the money to go after one relatively large contract. Tanaka makes total sense, based on age and upside. A guy like Ubaldo? He's got neither of those things going for him.

 

And even if you didn't lock him up early (which is what I foresee happening with most of these guys if/when they show something in the majors), an actual superstar hitting free agency for the first time in his mid 20's is a completely different story.

 

I don't think anyone here would be opposed to backing up the Brinks truck for Mike Trout.

 

I fear Javy's attitude is exactly the type that would say, nah I'm good when we go to him with a pre-FA extension.

 

And I bet there's a lot of people here who would be opposed to paying Mike Trout what he'll actually get.

[Guest]

It's going to be very interesting to watch the same people who act like paying premium for talent is the devil handle what happens if Baez or another of the prospects truly hits his ceiling and wants to get paid like a superstar.

 

Will tying up all the payroll still be the worst thing to do in the history of ever, or will it somehow be more acceptable because we developed the player?

 

This is a ridiculous post. One, you'd do everything humanly possible to lock Javy and whoever else up early, ala Castro and Rizzo. Secondly, in case you hadn't noticed, we appear to be in a legit money crunch, due to ownership. Whether it's because they can't or won't spend.... That is up for debate, I suppose, but it's beyond obvious they aren't, either way.

 

I seriously doubt anyone here wouldn't love to have a 150 mill+ payroll right now. But it's not happening anytime soon(new TV deal/renovation money) and it's quite allright to be cautious currently, when we MAY have the money to go after one relatively large contract. Tanaka makes total sense, based on age and upside. A guy like Ubaldo? He's got neither of those things going for him.

 

And even if you didn't lock him up early (which is what I foresee happening with most of these guys if/when they show something in the majors), an actual superstar hitting free agency for the first time in his mid 20's is a completely different story.

 

I don't think anyone here would be opposed to backing up the Brinks truck for Mike Trout.

 

I fear Javy's attitude is exactly the type that would say, nah I'm good when we go to him with a pre-FA extension.

 

And I bet there's a lot of people here who would be opposed to paying Mike Trout what he'll actually get.

 

 

I bet it's not that many. And they're idiots.