Offseason Rumors & Transactions Thread

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

It's Lester because they've apparently folded any chance with Scherzer prior to making a run at Lester. Now, you have a shot at 33 year old Shields and a bunch of guys like Jackson pre-2013 season. Oh yeah, you could trade the farm for Zimmermann or Hamels.

 

Meanwhile you have staffs in your League that eat hitters for breakfast.

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

It's Lester because they've apparently folded any chance with Scherzer prior to making a run at Lester. Now, you have a shot at 33 year old Shields and a bunch of guys like Jackson pre-2013 season. Oh yeah, you could trade the farm for Zimmermann or Hamels.

 

Meanwhile you have staffs in your League that eat hitters for breakfast.

 

Well, that's really not an argument for going hard after pitching. Pitching is pretty easy to come by.

 

 

I don't care though. Spend the money on the best ones because you have nowhere else to spend it, jerks.

[Guest]

Sorry, but Brandon [expletive] McCarthy and some reclamation project aren't going to cut it. Let's not [expletive] piece together another hipster team out of the dumpster.

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

It's Lester because they've apparently folded any chance with Scherzer prior to making a run at Lester. Now, you have a shot at 33 year old Shields and a bunch of guys like Jackson pre-2013 season. Oh yeah, you could trade the farm for Zimmermann or Hamels.

 

Meanwhile you have staffs in your League that eat hitters for breakfast.

 

Well, that's really not an argument for going hard after pitching. Pitching is pretty easy to come by.

 

 

I don't care though. Spend the money on the best ones because you have nowhere else to spend it, jerks.

I'm saying a couple teams have market cornered and when an ace comes available, you sign him to what he wants.

[Guest]

Sorry, but Brandon [expletive] McCarthy and some reclamation project aren't going to cut it. Let's not [expletive] piece together another hipster team out of the dumpster.

 

Brandon McCarthy is really good. Don't be a jerk, jerk.

Edited November 18, 2014 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

What was your stance on trading for Hamels?

[Elrhino]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

 

It represents a line in the sand that the Cubs recognize top tier talent and are willing to spend premium dollars to acquire it against other organizations who are willing to do the same. Not "Welp, we finished 2nd for Anabol Sanchez, but don't worry ... we've got Edwin Jackson in our crosshairs and we'll pocket the remainder for the rainy day fund that we're totally going to spend in 2013. Super duper promise."

[Guest]

Sorry, but Brandon [expletive] McCarthy and some reclamation project aren't going to cut it. Let's not [expletive] piece together another hipster team out of the dumpster.

 

Brandon McCarthy is really good. Don't be a jerk, jerk.

He's definitely hipster good.

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

What was your stance on trading for Hamels?

 

That it's very likely a moot conversation given Amaro's asking price, but I'm not all that jazzed about dealing for him. If and when Maeda is posted he'd be my far and away #1 SP target, and in free agency I also like McCarthy and especially Hammel more than the consensus. I do think Lester is likely to be pretty good in the short term(2012-2013 good though), but at his likely contract I don't think he's far and away better than some of the alternatives, like trying to make a trade with Washington, San Diego, or the Mets.

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

What was your stance on trading for Hamels?

Lol. I didn't say anything.

 

TT is fine with the Cubs piecing together a team from the island of misfit toys again.

[jersey cubs fan]

That it's very likely a moot conversation given Amaro's asking price, but I'm not all that jazzed about dealing for him. If and when Maeda is posted he'd be my far and away #1 SP target, and in free agency I also like McCarthy and especially Hammel more than the consensus. I do think Lester is likely to be pretty good in the short term(2012-2013 good though), but at his likely contract I don't think he's far and away better than some of the alternatives, like trying to make a trade with Washington, San Diego, or the Mets.

 

Plus waiver claims!!!

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

 

It represents a line in the sand that the Cubs recognize top tier talent and are willing to spend premium dollars to acquire it against other organizations who are willing to do the same. Not "Welp, we finished 2nd for Anabol Sanchez, but don't worry ... we've got Edwin Jackson in our crosshairs and we'll pocket the remainder for the rainy day fund that we're totally going to spend in 2013. Super duper promise."

 

To use really general terms, if the Cubs think that Lester is going to be really good for a while and is a low risk for injury, and he's at the top of their list, they shouldn't be afraid of the extra 2 million a year or whatever it takes to get him to sign on the dotted line. If they think he'll only be pretty good, or that his arm is at elevated risk of breaking down, or that he's only one of a couple top options, they shouldn't sign him at whatever price just to prove their 'commitment'. The 'line in the sand' stuff is imaginary fan posturing.

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

What was your stance on trading for Hamels?

 

That it's very likely a moot conversation given Amaro's asking price, but I'm not all that jazzed about dealing for him. If and when Maeda is posted he'd be my far and away #1 SP target, and in free agency I also like McCarthy and especially Hammel more than the consensus. I do think Lester is likely to be pretty good in the short term(2012-2013 good though), but at his likely contract I don't think he's far and away better than some of the alternatives, like trying to make a trade with Washington, San Diego, or the Mets.

You know, getting the best value doesn't even come close to meaning getting the best production.

[jersey cubs fan]

The 'line in the sand' stuff is imaginary fan posturing.

 

No more imaginary than the "next 15 months" nonsense.

[Guest]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

 

It represents a line in the sand that the Cubs recognize top tier talent and are willing to spend premium dollars to acquire it against other organizations who are willing to do the same. Not "Welp, we finished 2nd for Anabol Sanchez, but don't worry ... we've got Edwin Jackson in our crosshairs and we'll pocket the remainder for the rainy day fund that we're totally going to spend in 2013. Super duper promise."

 

To use really general terms, if the Cubs think that Lester is going to be really good for a while and is a low risk for injury, and he's at the top of their list, they shouldn't be afraid of the extra 2 million a year or whatever it takes to get him to sign on the dotted line. If they think he'll only be pretty good, or that his arm is at elevated risk of breaking down, or that he's only one of a couple top options, they shouldn't sign him at whatever price just to prove their 'commitment'. The 'line in the sand' stuff is imaginary fan posturing.

So you're boiling this down to just being about Lester? That's an effective way to frame your argument. Yeah, this is all just about Lester. Sure. I get it now!

[Guest]

You know, getting the best value doesn't even come close to meaning getting the best production.

 

You are way more certain about the performance gap between Lester and the 'hipster alternatives' than I am.

 

So you're boiling this down to just being about Lester? That's an effective way to frame your argument. Yeah, this is all just about Lester. Sure. I get it now!

 

Just the opposite in fact. I don't know how many times I can say 'make the team better, whether it involves getting Player X or not or whether it involves spending a bunch of money or not'.

[Guest]

of course we have the worst weather i ever remember having on November 18th for Lester.

[MWV]

of course we have the worst weather i ever remember having on November 18th for Lester.

I propose that all subsequent free agent meetings should take place in Joe Maddon's RV in Pensacola, FL.

[Guest]

You know, getting the best value doesn't even come close to meaning getting the best production.

 

You are way more certain about the performance gap between Lester and the 'hipster alternatives' than I am.

 

So you're boiling this down to just being about Lester? That's an effective way to frame your argument. Yeah, this is all just about Lester. Sure. I get it now!

 

Just the opposite in fact. I don't know how many times I can say 'make the team better, whether it involves getting Player X or not or whether it involves spending a bunch of money or not'.

 

It's the principle. They should spend everything they can. We have a smart FO that can find good value and that's awesome. I don't want them taking advantage of that fact so that PTR can keep more money. I want to take advantage of that so that we can win more games and sign the guys who will make us even better inefficiently too.

[jersey cubs fan]

You know, getting the best value doesn't even come close to meaning getting the best production.

 

You are way more certain about the performance gap between Lester and the 'hipster alternatives' than I am.

 

So you're boiling this down to just being about Lester? That's an effective way to frame your argument. Yeah, this is all just about Lester. Sure. I get it now!

 

Just the opposite in fact. I don't know how many times I can say 'make the team better, whether it involves getting Player X or not or whether it involves spending a bunch of money or not'.

 

But you consistently qualify that by eliminating the best options off the list and pretending that it is a good thing. This team has to get a lot better and you don't accomplish that with waiver claims.

 

 

I want them to make the team better but I am all for avoiding the most expensive free agents and not trading for available guys who might be too expensive.

 

 

Make up your mind. If you don't want to sign the talent and don't want to trade for the talent you don't want to go get talent. You want to worry more about efficiently acquired marginal upgrades as opposed to the most wins possible.

Edited November 18, 2014 by jersey cubs fan

[Guest]

You know, getting the best value doesn't even come close to meaning getting the best production.

 

You are way more certain about the performance gap between Lester and the 'hipster alternatives' than I am.

 

So you're boiling this down to just being about Lester? That's an effective way to frame your argument. Yeah, this is all just about Lester. Sure. I get it now!

 

Just the opposite in fact. I don't know how many times I can say 'make the team better, whether it involves getting Player X or not or whether it involves spending a bunch of money or not'.

 

It's the principle. They should spend everything they can. We have a smart FO that can find good value and that's awesome. I don't want them taking advantage of that fact so that PTR can keep more money. I want to take advantage of that so that we can win more games and sign the guys who will make us even better inefficiently too.

I believe what TT is saying is that everyone will end up happy with the offseason if we trade for Tyson Ross + Grandal from SD, sign Maeda and trade Jackson for Crawford + cash.

 

Having a great offseason requires us adding very good to great players, it doesn't require us signing big name FA.

[SouthSideRyan]

Lester is 1) a pitcher 2) 31 and 3) has a ton of miles on his arm, any deal with him carries a decent amount of risk by nature. That doesn't mean don't sign him(He's not at the top of my wish list but I've made peace with the risks in his case), but it means it's dumb to impute some sort of overarching significance to whether or not he signs with the Cubs.

 

And we can keep saying that every time we don't sign someone good.

 

If the Cubs have an offseason like last year, feel free to be upset that they didn't add anyone, I'll be there with you. In the meantime, arbitrary lines in the sand that Jon Lester represents a 'commitment to winning' are silly.

 

If the other side of that line is Brett Anderson and Jason Hammel, then yeah, they're not committed to winning next year.

[SouthSideRyan]

of course we have the worst weather i ever remember having on November 18th for Lester.

 

Ya know he spent like 6 years in Boston

[Banedon]

@DandCShow Gammons, "I get the feeling that the Cubs think Jon Lester is going back to Boston".

 

The actual comment

 

Let's hope Gammons got his one scoop for the offseason yesterday.

 

So Gammons did say this, but there was a lot more too it, and it didn't sound like it was nearly a done deal when you listen to the actual audio clip. They just played it on the Score.

[Guest]

You know, getting the best value doesn't even come close to meaning getting the best production.

 

You are way more certain about the performance gap between Lester and the 'hipster alternatives' than I am.

 

So you're boiling this down to just being about Lester? That's an effective way to frame your argument. Yeah, this is all just about Lester. Sure. I get it now!

 

Just the opposite in fact. I don't know how many times I can say 'make the team better, whether it involves getting Player X or not or whether it involves spending a bunch of money or not'.

 

It's the principle. They should spend everything they can. We have a smart FO that can find good value and that's awesome. I don't want them taking advantage of that fact so that PTR can keep more money. I want to take advantage of that so that we can win more games and sign the guys who will make us even better inefficiently too.

I believe what TT is saying is that everyone will end up happy with the offseason if we trade for Tyson Ross + Grandal from SD, sign Maeda and trade Jackson for Crawford + cash.

 

Having a great offseason requires us adding very good to great players, it doesn't require us signing big name FA.

 

I'm saying I don't agree with the "whether it involves spending a bunch of money or not" part.