Offseason Rumors

[JeffH]

Three.

[Felix Leiter]

Obviously, you sell high on Wood if possible, but is anyone else getting tired of every young player with promise being rumored to be shipped out "for the future"?

 

I guess I just feel if Wood and Samardzija are gone, there are no more "sure things" in the rotation and we're almost starting over. Depending on other acquisitions, of course.

 

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15 and that in '16 the young everyday players all of us can't wait to see will be here. What I hope Theo and Jed acquire young pitching back in return and not simply filler.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15

 

Totally not frustrating at all.

[Guest]

Obviously, you sell high on Wood if possible, but is anyone else getting tired of every young player with promise being rumored to be shipped out "for the future"?

 

I guess I just feel if Wood and Samardzija are gone, there are no more "sure things" in the rotation and we're almost starting over. Depending on other acquisitions, of course.

 

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15

 

Uhhhhh......

[Tryptamine]

Obviously, you sell high on Wood if possible, but is anyone else getting tired of every young player with promise being rumored to be shipped out "for the future"?

 

I guess I just feel if Wood and Samardzija are gone, there are no more "sure things" in the rotation and we're almost starting over. Depending on other acquisitions, of course.

 

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15 and that in '16 the young everyday players all of us can't wait to see will be here. What I hope Theo and Jed acquire young pitching back in return and not simply filler.

 

Why would you write them off as being bad in 2015? At that point Baez, Bryant, Alcantara, Pierce, Edwards, Soler etc should be either MLB or very close to ready at their current pace.

[Guest]

Obviously, you sell high on Wood if possible, but is anyone else getting tired of every young player with promise being rumored to be shipped out "for the future"?

 

I guess I just feel if Wood and Samardzija are gone, there are no more "sure things" in the rotation and we're almost starting over. Depending on other acquisitions, of course.

 

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15 and that in '16 the young everyday players all of us can't wait to see will be here. What I hope Theo and Jed acquire young pitching back in return and not simply filler.

 

Why would you write them off as being bad in 2015? At that point Baez, Bryant, Alcantara, Pierce, Edwards, Soler etc should be either MLB or very close to ready at their current pace.

 

Baez and Bryant MIGHT be in for their first full season and the rest of those guys MIGHT get called up...well Alcantara might see time next year but I'm not hanging huge hopes on him being a key member anyway.

 

Unless they decide to start trying in free agency or Baez and/or Bryant are amazing right away (and Castro rebounds), they are probably bad in 2015. Not as horrible and unwatchable as the last two years, but bad.

[TheDude]

Obviously, you sell high on Wood if possible, but is anyone else getting tired of every young player with promise being rumored to be shipped out "for the future"?

 

I guess I just feel if Wood and Samardzija are gone, there are no more "sure things" in the rotation and we're almost starting over. Depending on other acquisitions, of course.

 

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15 and that in '16 the young everyday players all of us can't wait to see will be here. What I hope Theo and Jed acquire young pitching back in return and not simply filler.

 

Why would you write them off as being bad in 2015? At that point Baez, Bryant, Alcantara, Pierce, Edwards, Soler etc should be either MLB or very close to ready at their current pace.

They may be ready, but that doesn't mean they will be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies. I don't think anyone can expect that entire crop of players comes out of the gate putting up positive wins on offense and defense all at the same time. A team with all those kids and promise in 2015 could still be last in the division.

[Guest]

They may be ready, but that doesn't mean they will be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies.

 

This is flawed logic. They don't have to be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies for the team to not be bad.

[Cubswin11]

Obviously, you sell high on Wood if possible, but is anyone else getting tired of every young player with promise being rumored to be shipped out "for the future"?

 

I guess I just feel if Wood and Samardzija are gone, there are no more "sure things" in the rotation and we're almost starting over. Depending on other acquisitions, of course.

 

It's not frustrating when you realize that we will be bad for '14-'15 and that in '16 the young everyday players all of us can't wait to see will be here. What I hope Theo and Jed acquire young pitching back in return and not simply filler.

 

Why would you write them off as being bad in 2015? At that point Baez, Bryant, Alcantara, Pierce, Edwards, Soler etc should be either MLB or very close to ready at their current pace.

 

Baez and Bryant MIGHT be in for their first full season and the rest of those guys MIGHT get called up...well Alcantara might see time next year but I'm not hanging huge hopes on him being a key member anyway.

 

Unless they decide to start trying in free agency or Baez and/or Bryant are amazing right away (and Castro rebounds), they are probably bad in 2015. Not as horrible and unwatchable as the last two years, but bad.

I don't think Alcantara will be a star but I think he could be a solid contributor and I'd be a little disappointed if he's not up at some point this year and doesn't have a spot on the ML roster to start the year next year.

[Guest]

We're one season and two offseasons from 2015. The team is coming off a ~70 win season, currently has zero pieces of importance leaving in FA after 2014, has no less than 5 top 100 prospects who could influence the 2015 roster in some way, and might have greater ability to spend once renovations get finalized and/or a new partial TV deal. Anyone telling you anything with certainty about the 2015 team is trying to convince themselves of that fact.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not crazy about our 2015 outlook, but yeah the error bars on any such projection are so huge as to make it barely interesting to even try.

[Guest]

We're one season and two offseasons from 2015. The team is coming off a ~70 win season, currently has zero pieces of importance leaving in FA after 2014, has no less than 5 top 100 prospects who could influence the 2015 roster in some way, and might have greater ability to spend once renovations get finalized and/or a new partial TV deal. Anyone telling you anything with certainty about the 2015 team is trying to convince themselves of that fact.

 

I'm not crazy about our 2015 outlook, but yeah the error bars on any such projection are so huge as to make it barely interesting to even try.

 

I don't really disagree, but without a major shift in how this organization spends in and approaches free agency, it seems like a lot would have to go very right (not just "not wrong") for this team not to be bad in 2015 just from within and minor FA pickups in some bad FA markets.

 

Trades are always the wild card, of course, if we ever decide to go after an impact player.

[TheDude]

They may be ready, but that doesn't mean they will be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies.

 

This is flawed logic. They don't have to be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies for the team to not be bad.

They do have to outproduce replacement level to 'not be bad', which as rookies some probably will, but collectively as a group probably will not substantially influence WAR positively unless one of the bunch is carrying the entire lot with a Trout-like rookie campaign.

 

How much better are you expecting that lot to be as rookie or 1.5 year players than current options?

[jersey cubs fan]

They may be ready, but that doesn't mean they will be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies.

 

This is flawed logic. They don't have to be producing at ceiling WAR rate as rookies for the team to not be bad.

They do have to outproduce replacement level to 'not be bad', which as rookies some probably will, but collectively as a group probably will not substantially influence WAR positively unless one of the bunch is carrying the entire lot with a Trout-like rookie campaign.

 

How much better are you expecting that lot to be as rookie or 1.5 year players than current options?

 

Depends specifically on who they replace.

[Clem Fandango]

Schoenfield with a fluff piece about why the Cubs should sign Jacoby Ellsbury:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/42592/cubs-should-sign-jacoby-ellsbury

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I was surprised to see he had a 32 home run season on his resume. I realize he has been hurt for parts of different seasons, but how did that dude go yard that many times in one year?

[ConstableRabbit]

I was surprised to see he had a 32 home run season on his resume. I realize he has been hurt for parts of different seasons, but how did that dude go yard that many times in one year?

How did the dude do it?

 

Well, sometimes a dude... Sometimes... A dude... A dude...

[CubsWin]

We're one season and two offseasons from 2015. The team is coming off a ~70 win season, currently has zero pieces of importance leaving in FA after 2014, has no less than 5 top 100 prospects who could influence the 2015 roster in some way, and might have greater ability to spend once renovations get finalized and/or a new partial TV deal. Anyone telling you anything with certainty about the 2015 team is trying to convince themselves of that fact.

 

I'm not crazy about our 2015 outlook, but yeah the error bars on any such projection are so huge as to make it barely interesting to even try.

 

I don't really disagree, but without a major shift in how this organization spends in and approaches free agency, it seems like a lot would have to go very right (not just "not wrong") for this team not to be bad in 2015 just from within and minor FA pickups in some bad FA markets.

 

Trades are always the wild card, of course, if we ever decide to go after an impact player.

Agree that trades are the wild card. Disagree that there needs to be a major shift in how the team spends. I think the Cubs are just at a stage in their rebuild where spending big on a lot of players just doesn't make sense. As the team fills out, spending big on the holes that are left becomes much more likely because it will line-up with their window for winning. The policy won't change, but the circumstances of the rebuild will.

 

Also, how the players they already have improve will play a big factor in how good the team will be in 2015. The Cubs have several key players in their prime or pre-prime. It is likely they will improve as they go. Wood, Arrieta and Castillo are in their prime ages with Rondon and Grimm on the edge of theirs. Castro, Rizzo and Lake are still pre-prime for another year or so. There is reason to believe that performances from these guys will continue to get better in the coming years. When you add in players like Baez, Bryant, Alcantara, Vizcaino, Hendricks, Villanueva and Olt who all have a very good shot of joining the big league club by 2015, an argument can be made just as easily for the Cubs being above .500 in 2015 as below.

[seanimal]

I'm not crazy about our 2015 outlook, but yeah the error bars on any such projection are so huge as to make it barely interesting to even try.

 

at least 83 wins

[NoDak]

Schoenfield with a fluff piece about why the Cubs should sign Jacoby Ellsbury:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/42592/cubs-should-sign-jacoby-ellsbury

 

This piece by Jesse Rogers (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/20608/the-case-against-signing-jacoby-ellsbury) is far better written and more in line with what the FO's strategy seems to be: Pile up young prospects. Even if they don't pan out they can be used as sweeteners in trades and players who rely on speed tend to fall of cliffs production wise. I can't help but think some wizard at ESPN said, "Hey, this Rogers piece makes a lot of sense. We better put a counterpoint out there to appease those who just want to sign a "big name""

[jersey cubs fan]

Schoenfield with a fluff piece about why the Cubs should sign Jacoby Ellsbury:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/42592/cubs-should-sign-jacoby-ellsbury

 

This piece by Jesse Rogers (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/20608/the-case-against-signing-jacoby-ellsbury) is far better written and more in line with what the FO's strategy seems to be: Pile up young prospects. Even if they don't pan out they can be used as sweeteners in trades and players who rely on speed tend to fall of cliffs production wise. I can't help but think some wizard at ESPN said, "Hey, this Rogers piece makes a lot of sense. We better put a counterpoint out there to appease those who just want to sign a "big name""

 

That is such a loony tunes theory. Why would ESPN want to counter the "sign a big name" group? Jesse Rogers' article is also terrible. Soriano and Crawford as anecdotal evidence against signing a guy who relies on speed?

 

 

In summation, this is a terrible article and using it to defend a stance is a huge mistake.

[Guest]

I question the idea that anyone ever would say "Hey, this Rogers piece makes a lot of sense."

[Guest]

I question the idea that anyone ever would say "Hey, this Rogers piece makes a lot of sense."

 

lol this

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Phil Hughes chatter seems to be picking up. After he goes, the mid-tier starting pitcher FA market is just about cleaned out, I think.

[rawaction]

Phil Hughes chatter seems to be picking up. After he goes, the mid-tier starting pitcher FA market is just about cleaned out, I think.

Does that chatter include the Cubs? Saw a couple things on Twitter, but didn't want to read.