Rob

I've long suspected that this was the case. I don't subscribe to overblown "chemistry" theories, but I do think Theo and Jed inherited a situation with Z that had become untenable. Theo may not buy into it either, but it the players really do, and they feel really strongly about it, then it becomes an issue. And as it became clear the team wasn't likely to compete in 2012, there was no reason not to trade him. I think it's also likely Miami was the only team that was going to be willing to take him on, largely because of Ozzie. Plagiarizing my article on NSBB's home page, are you? Plagiarism and intellectual property. Interesting concepts. Original thought? Let's try to quash that or copy it. Sound familiar boys? The "old guard" here has a ways to go imho. No offense to you. Rob. Just an observation. I can't figure out exactly what you're hinting at, but the fact you specifically said "no offense to you, Rob" makes me think I should probably be offended.

Yeah. Even as much as I've wanted Dave Duncan gone over the years, I'm taking absolutely no pleasure in this. I hope she recovers.

I'm a Big Z fan but I think with the Cubs playing poorly and sinking in the standings it would take one bad outing by Z for the whole "hold him for more value" idea would go up in flames. I wish him well but it had to be done. Oh, great article Rob. Thank you.

I admit I can't remember the details on the new CBA right now, but I recall seeing it postulated elsewhere that it might make sense to go severely over slot in the draft one year and then going over slot in IFA the next and continuing that pattern. Just throwing that out there.

davearm, maybe. davearm is the exception that proves the rule. Ouch. We've talked ad infinitum about Pujols and Fielder. My comfort level with Darvish is somewhere in the $20M/yr range (including posting). That would put him in the top 5 highest paid pitchers (without looking). It looks like $20M is not going to be enough to get him signed sealed and delivered. Closer to $25M/yr probably. I'm bullish and hopeful on both of the Cubans. Ha. If that's the worst you've gotten at NSBB in a while you're having an excellent start to the new year. I think I would've gone to around 6/135 on Darvish, posting fee included. And that's what I anticipate it'll end up costing the Rangers, roughly. And yeah, I'm still hopeful on both Cespedes and Soler. Moreso on Soler.

That's the worst that can happen. Didn't you hear that Theo wants to change the culture and build a winning team? Don't you remember that Theo says he wants productive players and who have their teammates' back? How does Z fit into any of those? Has he suddenly see the light and will shape up? You want to bring back an overpaid malcontent who attacked his teammates, quit on the team and is non-productive? No thanks. This is the showcase tour. Z has little value right now and if shows something now, maybe a team will be interested. I'm sure we may have to eat some $$$, but Theo knows that Z can't be brought back. Yes, he can. Nope..as I told you earlier. Yes, he could have pitched for the Cubs. I've seen this before. Some people believe that because a situation turned out one way, that was the only way it could have ever turned out... thus vindicating their prior opinions. It's called being a delusional megalomaniac. That's not the clinical term. I just like calling people that.

Scenarios for handling the Zambrano situation. 1.) Extend him - Not realistic 2.) Cut him - No benefit 3. ) Let him play out the season and walk - No benefit 4.) Trade him now - get best return possible* (Volstad) 5.) Hold onto him till the deadline and pray: a.) He pitches poorly -- Get nothing b.) He pitches well -- Get a similar piece to Volstad Maybe, just maybe Zambrano could pitch like an ace through the deadline... but even then he probably wouldn't net us much more than Volstad. Best to trade him now and get something rather than roll the dice for a marginal gain at best and nothing at worst.

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here. There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know. Early favorite for most ironic post of the year? Jersey, you've spent all offseason acting like a petulant child whose mother said "no" at the toy store.

We have been sharing an unseemly number of opinions lately. Now we're starting to share words. I guess I'm okay with it if you are. Read the front page stuff though.

Interesting. With all the back and forth I would not have thought that. I truly believe it. There's money in the payroll and everybody wants to see it spent. They just all want it spent on the right players... and everybody has a different idea about what that means. But some people (Jersey) want everybody. And when they go in each thread and see a few different people saying "no, we can spend it better elsewhere" suddenly there's this vast NSBB plague of quivering masses too scared to act.

I've long suspected that this was the case. I don't subscribe to overblown "chemistry" theories, but I do think Theo and Jed inherited a situation with Z that had become untenable. Theo may not buy into it either, but it the players really do, and they feel really strongly about it, then it becomes an issue. And as it became clear the team wasn't likely to compete in 2012, there was no reason not to trade him. I think it's also likely Miami was the only team that was going to be willing to take him on, largely because of Ozzie. Plagiarizing my article on NSBB's home page, are you?

Any info on the personal services contract? Heard it was $1 mil per for 10 years.

davearm, maybe. davearm is the exception that proves the rule.

Things would have to break really well for it to happen. Adding Fielder would be a significant boon. Yeah, they pretty clearly have the most incentive to be major players for him.

Where is anyone make such a general claim? People have been adament in their stance on the matter, and the movement is growing. Okay. Find me ONE person who doesn't think we should have bid heavily on any of Pujols/Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes. Just one person. Surely if this board is so scared of spending any money, that shouldn't be a feat at all. I'm guessing that the phrase bid heavily is the key here? Because bid heavily and acquiring are two different animals. When it comes down to it, if the Cubs are going to want to compete in the next three years they are not only going to have to bid heavily they are going to have to win a couple of those bids. No tricks. I used the phrase bid heavily in large part because the Darvish posting process is a blind bid, not a negotiation. Also, since we don't know what Fielder or Cespedes will sign for (or Darvish, for that matter) it seemed like the better choice of words. Put another way: At the conclusion of this offseason, I sincerely doubt Jersey would be able to find one person on this board willing to say he/she would not have been willing to acquire any of Pujols/Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes at the price it took to acquire them. If, by some miracle he did manage to find any, I'd wager that they would be a clear minority.

The Nats as they are currently constructed are a stretch to compete next year. But they're supposedly still pretty active, so that roster may look quite a bit better before the start of the season. Morse can cover one of 1B/LF. Werth can handle CF/RF. And Espinosa can handle one of 2B/SS. They're set at C and 3B. So they need 3 new position players, their starting staff to stay healthy and effective, and at least one additional bullpen arm. Yeah, they can maybe fill 2B and RF internally... but it'll be tough.

Where is anyone make such a general claim? People have been adament in their stance on the matter, and the movement is growing. Okay. Find me ONE person who doesn't think we should have bid heavily on any of Pujols/Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes. Just one person. Surely if this board is so scared of spending any money, that shouldn't be a feat at all.

Hyperbolic BS. How? It's a crappy team that had addressable needs that haven't been addressed. Really? One of the biggest organizational issues the Cubs had was a complete and utter lack of young starting pitching. We spent large chunks of last season with Casey Coleman, Rodrigo Lopez, and Ramon Ortiz in our damn rotation. And that was only going to get worse with Z and Dempster's contracts running out after 2012. There weren't any remotely ready guys to step into the rotation to fill those holes. In the last month we've acquired two young starting pitchers who can stay in the rotation for a very long time. The organization also had a complete lack of major league OF options. Brett Jackson may have been ready to replace Marlon Byrd's expiring contract, but Tyler Colvin was being relied upon as our RF. And there was no suitable 4th OF option in-house (Campana is a 5th OF who isn't a viable pinch hitting candidate). Now David DeJesus is plugging the hole in RF and we have a potential starting caliber OF in Sappelt to back up Soriano every time he tweaks his hamstrings. They're addressing significant organizational needs. And they'll address more before the offseason is over.

I didn't choose the timeframe to make a point... just to be as inclusive as possible without having to include years Pena didn't play. I trust neither of us is reading anything into that 6.0 WAR year. The difference between the WAR totals you see on fangraphs and b-r is basically a function of which defensive system you choose. In this particular case, Total Zone loves Overbay... giving him totals of +9, +16, +13, +7, and -2. UZR basically thinks he's a tick above average. Hence the disconnect. I seem to recall you being the type to dismiss large defensive numbers like that, but whatever. Split the difference or something. Pena is still a clearly better player. So acquiring a young guy like Rizzo "sucks out loud"? He's not without some holes in his game, but he is a 21 year old with a good scouting pedigree and a solid track record. Guys like that have as good a chance to turn into franchise cornerstones as anybody. Jackson may get more than 3/36, but he's not getting much more than that. Maybe 4/50 if a team goes crazy. But that would still fit. Kuroda is a solid pitcher who can help keep the team respectable next season and contribute to a potential contender in 2013. Should the Cubs front office feel they will not compete in 2013 for whatever reason (Castro gets hit by a bus or something), he would have excellent trade value. It's not something to build the franchise around, but it's another DeJesus type signing that makes us better with very little risk. For the record. I'm not happy about punting on 2012 either. But I'm not about to get outraged over the front office refusing to sign contracts they feel are a mistake. When your team is as bad as the Cubs are right now, there are always going to be ways to spend your budget. And Fielder is no better or worse an option than many others... he's just an easy one to look at and say "hey, he kinda fits." I'm willing to wait until the conclusion of this offseason before I grade it.

Overbay was around replacement level last year, I suppose that's his new level of ability? Of course we go by the standard rule: veteran has bad year, DOOOOOOOM; guy under 27(or 3 bad years), breakout potential. Carlos Pena has posted a WAR figure of 6.0, 3.7, 3.0, 1.1, and 2.6 over the last five years (since he came back to the majors with the Rays). Lyle Overbay has posted figures of -0.1, 1.8, 2.4, 1.3, and -0.6 over that same time frame. If you want to nitpick over me calling a 1 WAR player a replacement level guy, have at it. But pretending these two are even close to the same player is ridiculous. Did you have any thoughts as to my suggestion of other ways to spend the money? I'd love to hear them.

He's the easiest, and still allows you to make those other moves you are hoping for. Are you just pretending the Cubs don't have a budget or something? Spend $25 mil a season on Fielder, and that's $25 mil the Cubs cannot spend on guys like Jackson and Kuroda.

Because Carlos Pena is an above average 1B option, whereas Lyle Overbay comes in around replacement level? Before the Z trade, my suggestion was to spend the $25 mil annually we could have spent on Fielder and instead hand it out to Edwin Jackson (3/36 or so) and Hiroki Kuroda (2/25). Then ship off a package either of Z/Cashner/good prospect or Wells/Cashner/mildly intriguing prospect for a high upside 1B like Rizzo. Fielder is probably worth about 3-4 WAR more than Rizzo next season, but Jackson/Kuroda is probably 3-4 WAR better than our 4/5 starters projected to be. And we'd have had additional upside and long-term financial flexibility without a major change in production in the short term. Volstad being in the mix changes things up a bit, but the general idea remains the same. There are plenty of ways to spend money and improve the team. Fielder isn't the only option to make large improvements this offseason.

Admittedly I'm still at bit befuddled as to why some people are bemoaning not signing Pujols at the terms the Angels gave him. I really believe he's only got 3-4 years of 4-5 WAR production left in him. At 6-7 years I'm very interested because his early production will offset the last 3-4 years, but at 10 I'm firmly out. A 27-year old Pujols? Sure. But an already declining 32 year old Pujols? Not so much. I think Fielder at 5-7 years with vesting options makes a lot more sense. But like you I'd absolutely balk at 8-10. And I don't suffer from any Soriano-related trauma. Soriano was an awfully risky signing because he was 31 and so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs. That doesn't apply to the guys we're talking about, but that doesn't mean going "all in" on any of them is necessarily a good idea. I'm not bemoaning the loss of Pujols at that price. Would I have paid it? Maybe. It was somewhere in that grey zone of "more than I'm comfortable with, but not so much I feel like I can say no." But I'm also a believer that last year was an aberration rather than a trend. I'm looking for a bounce back to a 7+ WAR guy for the next couple years before the decline gets under way in earnest.

1.) That's not true. There are mid tier options like Carlos Pena out there. 2.) Even if it were, the whole point of this thread is to illustrate that FA isn't the only way to build a club. Did you ever notice the insane number of available 1B on the trade market? Logan Morrison Kendrys Morales Anthony Rizzo Justin Smoak Ike Davis Kyle Blanks Gaby Sanchez Those are just a sampling of some guys that could fill the void at 1B. There's also plenty of options out there like Carlos Lee and Adam LaRoche who can be had for nothing, hold down the fort for a year or two and provide average production. Or if you want to get a little risky you can always go with a reclamation project with upside like Chris Davis. There's about 50 options that fall somewhere in between Fielder, Votto, and Lyle Overbay. Let's not resort to absurdities.

I supported overpaying for Pujols and Darvish. I still want the Cubs to sign Cespedes and Soler. I'd also love for the Cubs to pick up one of Edwin Jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, or Roy Oswalt. There are guys out there like BJ Upton whom I would love to see the Cubs trade for an extend to a long term deal. I am not afraid of spending money or making long term commitments, even on risky guys. But I simply do not understand this bizarre sentiment that the Cubs need to be going all in on guys like Prince Fielder. Yeah, he's a great player. But he's not elite. And he's extremely risky. And he's likely to command the 3rd highest annual salary in baseball. He's a round peg people are trying to jam through a square hole.