Rob

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.

Because HR/FB rates are extremely volatile? In what must have been the last few minutes, fangraphs actually put up an article detailing the effectiveness of FIP, xFIP, SIERA, and the various projection systems at predicting future performance. Click here I'll be honest, after reading that I'm considering making the jump to SIERA as my go-to.

You can use either for either, a similar point applies either way. The biggest difference between FIP and xFIP is normalization of HRs/FB. For Wood, he was better than average at limiting HRs and Volstad was worse than average, which is a little odd considering where each played the majority of their games. i know that. i'm just pointing out that people are kind of cherry-picking a little bit. with wood, everyone just said LOOK AT HIS FIP and ignored the fact that xfip said he was hr lucky last year. now we're all brushing off volstad's fip and saying he'll be fine due to hr normalization. You make a valid point. We should be looking at both. (though I tend to trust xFIP more in general, except when it comes to extreme fly ball or ground ball pitchers)

I dont think hes keeping the Cubs from signing the Cubans, but his money is still added into the payroll. Its not a major issue but just 1 I dont see the need in spending 4.25 mil on a guy over 30 who brings zero long term value. There's value in keeping at least a decent product on the field so as not to tank attendance and damage revenues. But this team can still compete in 2013 or 2014, and DeJesus can be a part of that.

Right. Signing Fielder right now would be a more prudent move than waiting for Votto (who may or may not even make it to FA). Banking on potential free agents not to be extended by their team or traded and extended while passing on current FAs is a flawed and dangerous strategy. Yup.

Did you at least touch base on him being run over by a steamroller, Naked gun style? No, but if you want to make a .gif of that I'll put it in there.

an actual vision for the future and not taking on more bad contracts. let's be realistic, the cubs' core was lousy and the only way the cubs were going to be any good in 2012 was to make at least a couple of expensive free agent signings or trade the few good prospects we have for good major league players on other teams. Doing literally nothing would also help us have a vision for the future and not take on more bad contracts. What do you mean? That would just run out contracts with absolutely nothing in return. Other than the Marshall trade what have we brought in? Four former pretty good prospects in Ian Stewart, Chris Volstad, Travis Wood, and Casey Weathers. Two actual prospects in Sappelt and Torreyes. One semi-prospect in Jeff Bianchi. And David DeJesus, who is just a good player at a very cheap price.

I put my thoughts up in a front page article, if anybody is interested. I thought about calling Kaplan a racist directly in the thing, but I thought Tim might get mad.

Three. Thought so, but I have no idea when Cots updates the service time numbers.

How many seasons does Volstad have left under club control? 2? 3?

Dominguez sounds like a guy Theo/Hoyer would target given their apparent extremely strong emphasis on defense and lukewarm stance on offense. Not sure Z's value is high enough to net him, but it wouldn't surprise me if Theo/Hoyer want him. The Red Sox routinely ranked as one of the top offensive teams in baseball under Epstein. We will have offense, even if it isn't next year.

Career high strikeout rate last year along with a career low walk rate. The improvement was masked by what looks like some moderately bad luck. There's a hint of potential there, but the best case scenario looks like a typical Ryan Dempster year. Given he's not even under club control for long, I think I'd have rather held on to Zambrano and prayed for a resurgence (culminating in a deadline deal).

I wouldn't be shocked to see Vitters a C+

Of the guys already in the system, I think those two are the only ones with a good case for the #1 ranking. But if we acquire a Jacob Turner or Jesus Montero in a Garza deal that could change in a hurry. Same for Rizzo, if he still qualifies as a prospect.