Rob

Just last year. The Cards signed Holliday on January 8th.

It seems I like Porcello a lot more than the rest of the board seems to... He's just 23 years old and has posted fWAR's of 2.0, 2.0, and 2.7. It's not like he's a bad pitcher... he's pretty much league average. But he's getting better. His FIP and xFIP have improved each year he's been in the bigs, with last year's 4.06 and 4.02 marks comparing favorably to the recently traded Trevor Cahill (at 4.10 and 3.90). He's absolutely not the centerpiece of a deal... but 3 years of an already league average 23 year old with an exceptional scouting profile who has been steadily improving? Yeah, that's a throw-in I'd be very interested in -- especially if somebody in the front office sees something they can fix or thinks he'd benefit from learning a new pitch (a cutter may solve some of his problems with lefties).

Not possible. The Henny Penny's have already announced that the roster is set and the team sucks through 2013. Nothing to see here. You're one of my favorite new posters.

Source? Or just trolling?

I'm sold on the improvement, but a good chunk of that is simply the result of throwing a LOT more breaking pitches. When I see that, I also begin to brace myself for the inevitable injury to strike. It also doesn't help that I buy into the whole "there are two types of pitchers -- those who have had tommy john surgery, and those who haven't had tommy john surgery... yet" line of thinking.

Why is it necessary to label the move "uninspiring"?

That's absurd. I may be the single biggest Lake supporter on this board, but I'd flip him in a heartbeat to acquire Darwin Barney. (if we didn't already have him, obviously) Barney is a proven league-average 2B who makes absolutely nothing and is under control for 5 more years. If that description sounds kinda familiar, it's pretty close to the one people are using to describe why Theo wanted Travis Wood so badly. There are plenty of GMs that would love to have him. One season is not exactly proven. He has no power and he doesn't walk and while hes great defensively he's not at the Vizquel or Ozzie Smith level that it could carry his career, although in offensively focused day and age I have to wonder if even Ozzie would be as appreciated as he was 20 some years ago. Look, Barney is a guy with a pretty good chance to have a long average career probably back and forth between starting and backup depending where he lands. Lake on the other hand has the potential to be much better, but could also be junk. Seems like that's Theos type of thing. Remember, we traded Colvin and LeMahieu, 2 guys with a pretty good chance at being average for 2 guys that could be far better but could be junk. In fact this entire thread is about acquiring a guy who could be out 1st baseman of the future but could be junk. Average Runs per Game: 1990 - 4.26 1991 - 4.31 1992 - 4.12 1993 - 4.60 1994 - 4.92 1995 - 4.85 1996 - 5.04 1997 - 4.77 1998 - 4.79 1999 - 5.08 2000 - 5.14 2001 - 4.78 2002 - 4.62 2003 - 4.73 2004 - 4.81 2005 - 4.59 2006 - 4.86 2007 - 4.80 2008 - 4.65 2009 - 4.61 2010 - 4.38 2011 - 4.28 Offense has been trending down for an entire decade, with last season being the lowest scoring since 1992. The benchmarks for having an acceptable bat have shifted along with that, especially in the middle infield. Darwin Barney isn't a great baseball player. But he can play SS or 2B at a league average clip while making the league minimum. You think a smart GM with a hole in those spots wouldn't be all over him? Or even a dumb GM under a budget crunch? He's got value. Truffle, ideally I'd love to have a superstar at every position. But if we're making a list of priorities, upgrading 2B should come after the rotation, 1B, 3B, LF, CF, and maybe even C (depending on how comfortable you feel signing a 30 year old Soto to an extension). I think everybody else handled the Colvin madness well enough, so I wont get into that.

The Brewers acquired Betancourt and more importantly paid a chunk of his salary. It was an added incentive for the trade.

In the same article: •Center thinks the Padres "desperately" need to acquire a close-to-Major League-ready middle infield prospect. Which gets me back to the deal I mentioned earler: Rizzo + Hudson for Marmol + Barney + $2million (2012) + $4million (2013). Cubs get their 1B, Padres get their young MI, Padres get a good trade chip (Marmol) with a very trade-friendly contract to pick up more prospects. I'm going to need you to stay after class and write Darwin Barney has no trade value on the board 100 times. Maybe Marmol and Junior Lake for Rizzo could be taken seriously, but even then you can forget about the Padres throwing in any extra players. That's absurd. I may be the single biggest Lake supporter on this board, but I'd flip him in a heartbeat to acquire Darwin Barney. (if we didn't already have him, obviously) Barney is a proven league-average 2B who makes absolutely nothing and is under control for 5 more years. If that description sounds kinda familiar, it's pretty close to the one people are using to describe why Theo wanted Travis Wood so badly. There are plenty of GMs that would love to have him.

I seem to recall something about slugging percentage in the 7th inning or later.

I alternate almost daily on whether I love or hate Gose. Anybody care to share their opinion?

Paid "x" if on major league roster, "y" in minors.

It's really hard to care either way about this move. If he's backing up Soto it's a mild disappointment but the odds are pretty good he's just an extra target for spring training and then heads to Iowa to back up whichever one of Castillo/Clevenger doesn't get the MLB gig.

1.) Research. Not "research." Done by professionals, not me. 2.) Said research confirms what has been the working hypothesis in the sabermetric community for the better part of a decade. This isn't a new or revolutionary idea. 3.) I'll eat my hat if you even know what research it is you're referring to. You're dismissing it because it clashes with your opinion, not because of any well thought out argument against it. I'll concede that it's ok (and even advisable in certain situations) to overpay for top talent. I was advocating doing just that for Pujols and Darvish. But there are significant questions as to what degree Fielder qualifies as a "top talent" to begin with, which makes any overpay significantly more risky. If the front office comes home with Fielder on a 7 year deal, I'm sure it's probably fine. They have plenty of access to information that none of the rest of us do... scouting reports, research, projection systems, budgetary information, an actual blueprint about where they intend to take the team and when they plan to contend... etc... But every moron fan I've seen wringing his hands and freaking out about what a failure this offseason is if we don't come back with Fielder at any cost needs to get a reality check. If we're being generous we'll call him a 5 WAR 1B who wont age well. We may not see one of those on the FA market every year, but we can find similar upgrades elsewhere. If we bring him in, great. If we don't, big whoop. Slightly related, what do you think a realistic projection is for LaHair in 2012? I know that scouts have generally come around on him, but I'm not a big believer in LaHair. But he's not really the baseline for expected 1B production for us, given the absurd number of available 1B types.

Meh. My feelings were split when he exercised his option. He's a good player and seems like a good guy too, but I thought the Cubs might have been able to do more with $14 mil. Whatever happens with him, I'll find something to be happy about.

1.) Research. Not "research." Done by professionals, not me. 2.) Said research confirms what has been the working hypothesis in the sabermetric community for the better part of a decade. This isn't a new or revolutionary idea. 3.) I'll eat my hat if you even know what research it is you're referring to. You're dismissing it because it clashes with your opinion, not because of any well thought out argument against it. I'll concede that it's ok (and even advisable in certain situations) to overpay for top talent. I was advocating doing just that for Pujols and Darvish. But there are significant questions as to what degree Fielder qualifies as a "top talent" to begin with, which makes any overpay significantly more risky. If the front office comes home with Fielder on a 7 year deal, I'm sure it's probably fine. They have plenty of access to information that none of the rest of us do... scouting reports, research, projection systems, budgetary information, an actual blueprint about where they intend to take the team and when they plan to contend... etc... But every moron fan I've seen wringing his hands and freaking out about what a failure this offseason is if we don't come back with Fielder at any cost needs to get a reality check. If we're being generous we'll call him a 5 WAR 1B who wont age well. We may not see one of those on the FA market every year, but we can find similar upgrades elsewhere. If we bring him in, great. If we don't, big whoop.

Well, it's certain you're treating it as a no brainer. It's been thoroughly established in this thread that the typical aging curve is different for heavier players. This has been proven with research, not just conjecture. Players like Fielder tend to peak around 24-25 and begin their decline phase much earlier than their normal sized counterparts. In addition, this decline seems to occur at a more accelerated pace. Unfortunately, Fielder is likely at or nearing the tail end of his prime already. This idea that he's a young guy who's about to peak as he reaches physical maturity is absurd... he's already got more wear and tear on his body than Soriano had at 31. Also, nobody in their right mind can debate that Fielder's weight isn't already affecting his defense and baserunning. He's already well below average on both accounts and is only going to get worse. Fielder carriers very significant risk factors. You can deny it, but you're only fooling yourself. Seven years is far more likely to be a mistake than do anything constructive towards building our next winner. (For the record, I was all about overpaying for Pujols or Darvish. I also wouldn't mind Fielder on a 5/6 year deal. This isn't just a "he's not cost-effective" rant... he's just likely to receive a contract that far exceeds my personal risk threshold)

Now if we could only just get most people to acknowledge how likely it truly is that Prince is likely to "suck" at some point in the contract, we might be able to come to a consensus on how dumb offering 8 years would be.

It wouldn't make much sense to commit 5 mil in payroll for next year just to get slightly better prospects in this deal. We could have spent that money in Latin America and come out ahead for it. Theo has said it before... it's just about trying to acquire assets. DeJesus is a good player who signed for cheap. Depending on what happens through the rest of this offseason and the next one, DeJesus may be able to contribute to a contending Cubs team in years 2 & 3 of his contract... failing that, he may very well be worth a small package of interesting prospects to a contending team.

How about one? I'd love that. I was all about overpaying for Pujols or Darvish. Wouldn't mind overpaying Fielder, either... just not by 40 mil.

What are your thoughts on Matt Dominguez? I think if the Marlins came out offering Morrison and Dominguez, I'd certainly at least have to consider it.

We only sign aces and 5+ WAR hitters. And none of this "defense" crap counts. Moves that make small, incremental improvements to the team are a good thing. Not every move can or should be a blockbuster.

Saw in on Twitter by Levin, LEVIN T BLACK?

Meh? He's a decent enough pitcher when healthy. If the medicals came back alright and the money isn't excessive it should be a pretty nice move. But we can't really judge it til we see what we're paying.

Okay, that's a hell of a deal for the Cards. Wish we'd been able to move Soriano and get in on that.