pccubfan

yesss yesssss yessssssssss

I'm at a loss as to how this doesn't apply to Garza. You're making a number of different arguments here and I'm struggling to see how they're related. You're not finding a Hamels type player at Garza's pricetag in free agency, you're not even going to find a Garza type player at Garza's pricetag in free agency. My point is we have a chance to keep a very good pitcher and help ourselves in building for the future and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for us to trade him for a decent young player and a few longshots with upside when we don't need to do that. If the FO's master plan doesn't include them seriously competing until 2015, then you're using up 40% of Garza's contract, and probably his best years during the contract, to be mediocre. It would seem that the FO could make a deal for Garza that would include a player(s) that would be much more useful to the team in 2015-2017 timeframe for which Garza will be signed for much less money. For an extended Garza to make sense I really think the Cubs have to plan on being contenders in 2014.

Castillo/Clevenger are not going to produce at Soto's level when Soto is playing at his best. I'm not sure that we'll ever see Soto again at his best though. Most probable scenario, to me, is that the combination will produce roughly the same as Soto next year, but will do it at a cheaper price.

If Beckett stays healthy he should perform at roughly Garza's level. He'll cost more than Garza over those two years but there won't be the long term commitment that comes with Garza. It would depend on what the Red Sox would want in return. If the Red Sox would eat a little salary and the prospect packages offered were equal, I'd probably pick Beckett over Garza. Long term commitment with Garza? Garza is a FA after 2013, Beckett is signed through 2014. Yeah, I didn't explain that very well. I was trying to give Beckett some additional value for having two years left on his contract versus one year of Garza. In order to have Garza a second year, you would have to sign him to a long term deal that will last well beyond two years. Given Beckett's on again, off again performance history, injury history and salary, I think the extra year is just as much a deterrent as it is a perk, especially for a payroll minded club. It's certainly a risk. But if the Red Sox kicked in $2 million per year, I think it is a risk worth taking. Beckett should be able to perform at a level consistent with a $13.75 million per year contract and offer some chance of upside.

But would the Braves want him? He hasn't been terrible, but he hasn't been very good (his k/9 is way down). Plus he's owed a ton of money, which may be an issue for Atlanta. And he's a perpetual injury risk. If Beckett stays healthy he should perform at roughly Garza's level. He'll cost more than Garza over those two years but there won't be the long term commitment that comes with Garza. It would depend on what the Red Sox would want in return. If the Red Sox would eat a little salary and the prospect packages offered were equal, I'd probably pick Beckett over Garza. Long term commitment with Garza? Garza is a FA after 2013, Beckett is signed through 2014. Yeah, I didn't explain that very well. I was trying to give Beckett some additional value for having two years left on his contract versus one year of Garza. In order to have Garza a second year, you would have to sign him to a long term deal that will last well beyond two years.

Only eight? I'd trade every one of them if the deal made sense for the team.

But would the Braves want him? He hasn't been terrible, but he hasn't been very good (his k/9 is way down). Plus he's owed a ton of money, which may be an issue for Atlanta. And he's a perpetual injury risk. If Beckett stays healthy he should perform at roughly Garza's level. He'll cost more than Garza over those two years but there won't be the long term commitment that comes with Garza. It would depend on what the Red Sox would want in return. If the Red Sox would eat a little salary and the prospect packages offered were equal, I'd probably pick Beckett over Garza.

He heard there may be an opening in Chicago next week.

Gets tiring when he walks in 3 of 4 games. A Vitters walk is never tiring.

Tim must be away. He has informed us of most of Vitters' walks this year. But chalk up a new career high for walks for Vitters. Jackson singled in a run following the walk.

Dempster trying to rehab is image?

Exactly: Dempster next year would be an innings-eater, marking the time until Epstein and Co. feel like trying to win. You can always go get another one or three of those, mineaswell get a small return for him now. Dempster will only require a one year commitment.

Dempster at 12.5M for 2013 is worth far more than a "small return" Unless they intend on drastically changing their apparent intentions for 2013 (which would be awesome), not really. I'd agree if the Cubs had too many arms competing for five spots or if they had budget limiations, but neither apply in this case. I don't know how holding on to Dempster is any different than signing another Maholm next offseason.

FFS He seriously needs to STFU. Then the media should probably stop asking him questions. It's their job to ask questions. It isn't Dempster's job to make himself look even more foolish by answering them. A simple," no further comment" would suffice.

FFS He seriously needs to STFU.

Why? Dempster was within his rights to torpedo the trade. He exercised those rights. How can you support punishing some one that has done nothing wrong? He's well within his rights to nix the trade (which he has yet to). He's well within his rights to lie and mislead his employers too, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve flack for it. Is sitting him the rest of the year flack or punishment? Seriously, I'm ticked off that Dempster hasn't agreed to the trade, but when employees are given rights you have to expect them to exercise them from time to time. And you shouldn't expect that the employee is punished when they do so. You don't sit him or bench him or relegate him to the bullpen. That's silly overreaction. I didn't day the FO should punish him. But you better believe he deserves the flack and ill will (not death threats) for lying to the front office, diminishing his trade value, etc. He wasted the FO's time and has hurt the organization's chances of getting good value going forward. Heck, he might have hurt his chances to get another long term contract. That's his punishment. No one here was upset when Aramis declined being traded because he was up front with the Cubs. That's all Dempster needed to do. I can agree with you on flack, I don't agree with anyone saying he should be punished.

This says otherwise Gooney.

Why? Dempster was within his rights to torpedo the trade. He exercised those rights. How can you support punishing some one that has done nothing wrong? He's well within his rights to nix the trade (which he has yet to). He's well within his rights to lie and mislead his employers too, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve flack for it. Is sitting him the rest of the year flack or punishment? Seriously, I'm ticked off that Dempster hasn't agreed to the trade, but when employees are given rights you have to expect them to exercise them from time to time. And you shouldn't expect that the employee is punished when they do so.

Why? Dempster was within his rights to torpedo the trade. He exercised those rights. How can you support punishing some one that has done nothing wrong? The thing that he may very well have done wrong is lie to his bosses about his intentions. This isn't true unless you want to call the FO liars too. There have been reports that they themselves thought that this could be an issue. If Dempster had flat out said he agreed to the trade the FO would have been surprised with this string of events.

Why? Dempster was within his rights to torpedo the trade. He exercised those rights. How can you support punishing some one that has done nothing wrong?

So you're upset that Dempster is having a good year this year?

What can they do really? Sit him? I don't think that's likely. They can let the people in this thread throw rotten vegetables at him. Even that's too good for him, this is 2012. Or they could say Ryan Dempster will be the starter for the remainder of the year.

Maybe, who knows at this point. But if they're gonna spend money on a pitcher, don't you think this FO is probably more likely to spend it on a younger player that they might be able to get a few productive seasons out of? Sure all things being equal. How many of these types of pitchers will be available this offseason? I think the FO would rather go 1/$12.5 with Dempster than 5/$60 for McCarthy or 5/$70 for Sanchez.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ok, why would the Cubs pay for a 36yo pitcher when they're rebuilding? It just doesn't seem to be a match with the way that Theo and Jed are going about all this. A) They have the money. B) They have a desperate need to fill 5 spots and barely any pitchers to fill them. I just think they'll go with a cheaper, younger option if they're just looking to eat innings. Paying Dempster a ton for one season doesn't really seem to make sense. So you envision the payroll being slashed again this offseason and throwing away 2013?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ok, why would the Cubs pay for a 36yo pitcher when they're rebuilding? It just doesn't seem to be a match with the way that Theo and Jed are going about all this. I don't think it happens, but Dempster would be attractive to the Cubs because he can probably be signed to a short term deal, for a fair price. Someone is going to have to throw some innings next year. If Delgado does pitch for the Cubs he will be on an innings limit, Shark will probably still be babied a little too and we've seen there isn't much to pick from in AA orr AAA right now.