Offseason Rumors

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It really sucks that Wittenmeyer is the only local reporter willing to address some key issues, because he clowns it up pretty hard.

[d_money]

It really sucks that Wittenmeyer is the only local reporter willing to address some key issues, because he clowns it up pretty hard.

What about Bruce?

[USSoccer]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

[Guest]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

I liked the return for Feldman quite a bit.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

 

In theory, if you get enough decent short-term guys and a lot of luck, you can actually be competitive and not have to flip them. I thought we did a decent job trying that last year. It's not great, but it's better than just doing nothing or giving jobs to Stewarts and LaHairs.

[Guest]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

I liked the return for Feldman quite a bit.

 

Considering what we flipped and how he was doing, I felt like we made out pretty damn well in the Hairston trade too.

[USSoccer]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

I liked the return for Feldman quite a bit.

 

Considering what we flipped and how he was doing, I felt like we made out pretty damn well in the Hairston trade too.

 

That isn't the point. A major market team shouldn't be behaving like the 2000's Pittsburgh Pirates. Our ambitions should be a bit higher than "sign guys to trade at the deadline".

[Guest]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

I liked the return for Feldman quite a bit.

 

Considering what we flipped and how he was doing, I felt like we made out pretty damn well in the Hairston trade too.

 

That isn't the point. A major market team shouldn't be behaving like the 2000's Pittsburgh Pirates. Our ambitions should be a bit higher than "sign guys to trade at the deadline".

 

When/why did this become a philosophical discussion, anyway?

 

It's a rumor and it was posted. Nobody told you to give a rat's ass or get excited about it.

[USSoccer]

Aside from SSR's completely cromulent point about all those players being bad, why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?

I liked the return for Feldman quite a bit.

 

Considering what we flipped and how he was doing, I felt like we made out pretty damn well in the Hairston trade too.

 

That isn't the point. A major market team shouldn't be behaving like the 2000's Pittsburgh Pirates. Our ambitions should be a bit higher than "sign guys to trade at the deadline".

 

When/why did this become a philosophical discussion, anyway?

 

It's a rumor and it was posted. Nobody told you to give a rat's ass or get excited about it.

 

Nice contribution.

[Guest]

 

Nice contribution.

 

You as well.

[Guest]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

[USSoccer]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

 

How would you describe it, then?

 

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to be pleased with the organization's path.

[Guest]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

 

How would you describe it, then?

 

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to be pleased with the organization's path.

 

I know these big threads can devolve into talking about just about anything, but maybe since the organization's path is what it is and just about any rumor surrounding them could be turned into the discussion you're wanting to start (in other words, you could find a way to bitch about the organization's path with just about any move they're rumored to make), it might make more sense to either find a thread where bitching about the organizational philosophy is more relevant or make one on your own, so that this thread can just be about actually sharing and discussing the rumors themselves.

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

The Indians are said to be open to listening to offers on Justin Masterson, and the Yankees have emerged as a possible suitor, according to Bob Nightengale of USA Today. Nightengale reports that the Yankees would be interested in acquiring Masterson in a deal involving Brett Gardner. A third team would likely be required, since the Indians don't have a need Gardner

 

Maybe the Cubs could get involved.

[USSoccer]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

 

How would you describe it, then?

 

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to be pleased with the organization's path.

 

I know these big threads can devolve into talking about just about anything, but maybe since the organization's path is what it is and just about any rumor surrounding them could be turned into the discussion you're wanting to start (in other words, you could find a way to bitch about the organization's path with just about any move they're rumored to make), it might make more sense to either find a thread where bitching about the organizational philosophy is more relevant or make one on your own, so that this thread can just be about actually sharing and discussing the rumors themselves.

 

I didn't realize it was verboten to bitch about another crappy rumor that doesn't involve the major league team getting better. I never realized that discussing the implications of a rumor wasn't allowed. The scales are off my eyes, now, though.

 

I really appreciate you clarifying what exactly is and isn't allowed in terms of discussion.

[Guest]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

 

How would you describe it, then?

 

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to be pleased with the organization's path.

 

I know these big threads can devolve into talking about just about anything, but maybe since the organization's path is what it is and just about any rumor surrounding them could be turned into the discussion you're wanting to start (in other words, you could find a way to bitch about the organization's path with just about any move they're rumored to make), it might make more sense to either find a thread where bitching about the organizational philosophy is more relevant or make one on your own, so that this thread can just be about actually sharing and discussing the rumors themselves.

 

I didn't realize it was verboten to bitch about another crappy rumor that doesn't involve the major league team getting better. I never realized that discussing the implications of a rumor wasn't allowed. The scales are off my eyes, now, though.

 

I really appreciate you clarifying what exactly is and isn't allowed in terms of discussion.

 

I didn't say anything about what is and isn't allowed.

 

I made a suggestion for how the topic you want to discuss might be better advanced and received. Go ahead and do you.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'm not a fan of giving up assets for players who provide nothing with their bat.

Yep. Our offense is bad enough.

 

 

Net runs are net runs.

 

Real runs are cooler than hypothetical runs.

[USSoccer]

I'm not a fan of giving up assets for players who provide nothing with their bat.

Yep. Our offense is bad enough.

 

 

Net runs are net runs.

 

Real runs are cooler than hypothetical runs.

 

Not according to some people.

[Guest]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

 

How would you describe it, then?

 

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to be pleased with the organization's path.

 

I know these big threads can devolve into talking about just about anything, but maybe since the organization's path is what it is and just about any rumor surrounding them could be turned into the discussion you're wanting to start (in other words, you could find a way to bitch about the organization's path with just about any move they're rumored to make), it might make more sense to either find a thread where bitching about the organizational philosophy is more relevant or make one on your own, so that this thread can just be about actually sharing and discussing the rumors themselves.

 

I didn't realize it was verboten to bitch about another crappy rumor that doesn't involve the major league team getting better. I never realized that discussing the implications of a rumor wasn't allowed. The scales are off my eyes, now, though.

 

I really appreciate you clarifying what exactly is and isn't allowed in terms of discussion.

 

You don't have to be difficult about this. In a post from an internet "insider" that contained a half dozen different items, he mentioned interest in some buy low SP options. SSR's comment about them being bad was literally the only response that had mentioned that point. So you might see how "why on earth should anyone give a rat's ass or get excited about the Cubs signing guys just to flip 4 months later?" would be taken as being needlessy argumentative to drive the conversation to an extremely well-worn and unproductive path. Post whatever you want, but everyone else is going to react how they want too, and more than a couple people aren't too keen on revisiting the "we aren't spending money, this stinks" trope for something so inconsequential.

[ctcf]

Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1

#Pirates #Rays talking to #Marlins about Logan Morrison, #Cubs too who would play him in OF rather than 1b. Hear Fla prioritizing 3b

 

Worth it for twitter alone

[jersey cubs fan]

I didn't say anything about what is and isn't allowed.

 

I made a suggestion for how the topic you want to discuss might be better advanced and received. Go ahead and do you.

 

I don't think it is at all realistic to suggest somebody withhold their opinion about these rumors and just stick to discussing the "facts" of the rumors themselves.

 

The fact is the Cubs are doing a horrible job fielding a competitive major league baseball team and have been doing so for many years. That fact will hang over any move they make, or any move they are rumored to be considering.

[ctcf]

Buster OlneyVerified account

‏@Buster_ESPN

Source: There are no legs to the Yankees-Masterson trade talk.

[Fro]

Edit, already beaten on the Morrison talk. Could be a helpful trade for us if he's healthy. Edited December 11, 2013 by Fro

[The-Kris-Bryant]

That was your language. I suspect that if you had opened with "shouldn't be acting like 2000's Pirates" that it would have gone more smoothly.

 

How would you describe it, then?

 

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to be pleased with the organization's path.

 

What would you change? Have the Cubs go big on a 10 year contract for Cano? Go big on Choo? Sign Matt Garza? Flip Baez and Almora for Price? Then supplement all of that on the free agent market with guys like Infante and Arencibia in a desperate attempt to go in win-now mode? Because that's what you're asking for and it sounds an awfully lot like the Cubs under Jim Hendry.

 

The Cubs aren't one huge splash - like Cano - away from contending. They may not even be two splashes away - like Cano and Price - without supporting them with 2 or 3 other mid level additions to support them. That's a lot to accomplish in FA and/or trades. It sucks but the Cubs should be patient in the FA market on better players. They found out the hard way last year with Jackson. Signing just Cano would have made us a bit better next year (say winning 75 games instead of 70) and a little bit better in 2015 (say winning 85 games instead of 80 or 80 instead of 75 games) but at the end the day he's a 30 year old middle infielder whose contract would have been a liability after the first 2-3 years. Offensive-minded 2B not named Jeff Kent don't age well. His contract would have limited the Cubs' room to maneuver in FA markets during the time period the Cubs are best suited to make a run for it - the last half of the decade. While I hate waiting as much as the next guy, the Cubbies simply are not in a position to win now. The cupboard was barren when Theo took over and a win-now strategy would have resulted in spending a bunch of money and still missing the playoffs. That money has rightfully been routed into developing a first-class assembly line prospect machine that hopefully will lay the foundation of a string of elite baseball teams.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Cubs in on Logan Morrison (along with Pirates and Rays)... Marlins want a 3B. Cubs would play Morrison in OF

 

I'd honestly rather start Bogusevic than pay any salary to or give up anything of value for Morrison to be an outfielder.