pccubfan

n/m

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future. What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now. There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this. There is something wrong with it when not trading assets that have no value after 2012 hurts the team in later years. Keeping mediocre players to hope for 85 wins in 2012 makes no sense when those players can't help the team in 2013 when there's a better chance at winning. Who are you specifically talking about? Zambrano, Marshall someone else? I can't speak for jersey, but I don't have a real problem with either of those trades. Neither one would prevent the Cubs from being competitive in 2012 if they make other moves that can help in 2012 and the future.

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future. What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now. There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this.

those are going to be some really good trades. They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example. The Marshall trade was a good trade but Marshall was also our third best asset. It's going to take players a lot better than Wood for this team to be competitive in 2013. That's the point, the Cubs are not going to be able to compete even in 2013 without stepping into the free agency market and I'm not sure why that process wasn't begun this offseason. Bc we couldn't sign Pujols, Wilson (took less money to play in LA), and the Cubans (who I hope we do sign). The Cubs just couldn't sign enough studs to make the team truly competitive in 2012. We had a lot of mediocre talent that was gone after 2012, one or two valuable assets that were signed thru 2012, and a couple of bad contracts that expire not too long after 2012. If we turn all of that into assets that have value in 2013 and later, we can use that value in 2013 or trade it before 2013 for even more valuable assets. I love that strategy. There are some moves I don't understand. Reed Johnson comes to mind. But if paying him a million bucks keeps BJax in the minors for 2012, that's probably a good thing. We're already wasting a lot of Castro's talent so why waste more? DeJesus makes sense if he's a guy we can flip at the deadline for 2013 value. There's a method here. And I like it. Again, why does signing a Pujols or a Fielder have to be about competing in 2012. They should both be productive beyond 2012. If the Cubs sign Fielder and one of the Cubans this offseason, then this offseason can be classified as a success in my mind, even if they don't compete in 2012.

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of. There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is. We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving. And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO. I don't have a problem with this trade. It is what it is but you are trying to make it out as the Cubs are a clear winner here. Under what definition have Volstad's numbers been not much different than Zambrano's? If you're looking at 2011, then sure, but that is a case of trying to make the numbers fit your side of the argument. To expect Volstad to outperform Zambrano in 2012 is being optimistic. It is much more likely that he will match Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperform them. The comparison to Zambrano was made in the fangraphs article. And if Volstad matches Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperforms them (with the chance of outperforming them), then how do the Cubs not come out the clear winner? Volstad is younger, (presumably) improving, and has two additional years of team control. If 2012 winds up being a wash, then the Cubs have done great here. Because if both Volstad and Zambrano are bad it doesn't make it good for the Cubs.

those are going to be some really good trades. They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example. The Marshall trade was a good trade but Marshall was also our third best asset. It's going to take players a lot better than Wood for this team to be competitive in 2013. That's the point, the Cubs are not going to be able to compete even in 2013 without stepping into the free agency market and I'm not sure why that process wasn't begun this offseason.

It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres, Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012. Seriously, lets let 2012 go. Signing one of the best free agents available this offseason could absolutely have helped in competing in 2013 and beyond. That's where my frustration comes from. I didn't understand where your numbers were coming from, as I thought you were only using free agents signed in the last three years. Sorry. Are the chances of signing a free agent that puts up a 5+ WAR really that much less than obtaining somebody in the draft? If I were to guess, trades for soon to be major league stars is the most efficient way to obtain stars. Which suggests that a Garza trade would make sense.

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success. If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it. Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

Why limit it to just guys traded after reaching the majors? What about guys traded on the cusp of the majors? Those guys(Hanley and Wainwright, to name two) are still counted, they just get lumped in with Homegrown. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I thought that was a simple and intuitive enough line. Doesn't that just skew unnecessarily into the "just wait for the farm to work everything out" situation? It's simple, but I'm not sure how intuitive it is to pretend trading for a ready made prospect is the same as drafting/signing/developing your own star. Your theory seems to suggest we should just wait for the farm to do it's work, but if you wait for the farm it's going to take forever. You have to acquire other people's stars if you don't want to wait that long. That is done either via trade, of budding superstars (reasonable), already established pre free agency stars (farm clearers + money), or free agency (money). The Cubs have money, they don't have a farm or the assets to trade for other teams about to arrive superstars. So right now, their only option is to sign free agents. In a couple years maybe they can trade for established stars, and a couple years after that some of their own should be coming through the system. I don't think that my pretty simplistic exercise really directly points to that type of solution. Really, I was trying to point more towards the surprisingly small number of FA's that have star-quality seasons. The difference in "develop your own stars" and "trade for guys who are not yet stars but might/will be soon" isn't terribly important, especially in the context of all the other comments that were made in the original post and the ensuing replies. Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky.

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of. There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is. We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving. And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO. I don't have a problem with this trade. It is what it is but you are trying to make it out as the Cubs are a clear winner here. Under what definition have Volstad's numbers been not much different than Zambrano's? If you're looking at 2011, then sure, but that is a case of trying to make the numbers fit your side of the argument. To expect Volstad to outperform Zambrano in 2012 is being optimistic. It is much more likely that he will match Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperform them.

I certainly am not going to blame Theo and crew for not winning in 2012. But with the resources the Cubs have available they should be expected to compete in 2013.

It's pretty hard to imagine the Cubs competing in the next three years without signing any free agents. It seemed that the stars had aligned this offseason with Pujols and Fielder available. The FO seems to have decided to go a different direction which is why they are being paid the big bucks. I can't say that I'm too interested in investing my time in the 2012 club. Hopefully, this time next year it will appear as though the 2013 will be worth following.

I think we might get more for him at the deadline, when teams are good and desperate. If the Yankees are in a dogfight with the Sox in July, they might be more willing to surrender a package with Montero and one of the Bs. If you can't get what you want for him now, start extension talks and if they don't go smoothly, deal him in July. I can't see the Yankees dealing Montero at the deadline. By then he will be firmly encamped in their every day lineup. A team in contention is going to give up prospects not someone that is currently producing.

Kind of a meh trade. Cubs gave up the better and older pitcher, who is a headcase, for a younger worse pitcher. I don't think that the Cubs are much worse after the trade and with some luck could be better. Hopefully, this deal hasn't been the focus of the offseason.

Hello? Its Dale's brother! Yeesh. It cracks me up that all of these "people in the know" predict when a trade is going to happen. Quite a few pages ago somebody who knew somebody claimed it was going down on Tuesday. Everybody knows the Cubs are shopping Garza and 3-4 teams are seriously interested, so saying a trade is going to happen soon isn't really going to far out on a limb. Agreed. The Hoyer/Epstein front office is also very tight lipped, much more so than the Hendry crew. The fact that anyone thinks they can predict if/when something happens is laughable. I'm a little surprised that we even know they are shopping Garza. I think it is too early to know how tight lipped they are. There really hasn't been enough time for any sources to be developed. Perhaps in the future there will be more information available via leaks.

So maybe the FO ought to tell the paying public exactly what the "big picture" is instead of expecting everyone to "keep the faith" when they sign Reed Johnson because it's part of a mysterious big plan If Marmol's arm explodes or if either has another bad season' date=' they become much less valuable.[/color'] The expected rosters of the 2012 & 2013 Chicago Cubs. The poll will be taken at the box office when the team loses revenue for 2-3 years. I completely disagree with the notion that the front office should openly announce their strategy to the public, all of MLB, or the agents and GMs they are in daily negotiations with. Your second point has nothing to do with the discussion over perceived value for Soto and Marmol now. Of course if Marmol's arm explodes or Soto has another bad season, their value will drop. In other news, the sky is blue. lol We have no idea what the expected rosters will look like in 2012 or 2013. Pure speculation and hand wringing over events that have not transpired as yet. Indeed it will. Thing is, you are not factoring in the drop in payroll in this scenario, so revenue is a bit tough to project. The Ricketts are shrewd business people. I trust they have the foresight to factor in possible outcomes to different business approaches. That said, some meatball fans may stay away next year. New fans may also take their places. This is not the same scenario as the end of last year. Not by any stretch. Cubs fans are very intelligent and informed (for the most part). With a new team/ ballpark/ and brand on the rise, I think people will come out. I know I certainly will. Are you flat out ignoring the post that started this discussion? He made presumptions about what he thought would happen including how the major league roster would be constructed. So those are the guidelines being used to construct the 2012 or 2013 roster. Sure payroll will likely drop to counter the revenue dropping. But in order to make a big free agent acquisition in the future, a scenario you don't dismiss, ownership will likely have to make a leap of faith and increase payroll over the revenue that is being collected. I certainly agree that the Ricketts are shrewd business people and I agree that they have considered all of these factors and have all sorts of what-if forecasts. Most teams are owned by such people. However, we aren't talking profitability here. We are talking about building a championship contending baseball team. I don't think that the Tribune Company probably ever took a loss via the Cubs but that didn't get the Cubs to a World Series.

I guess I don't know what you're criticizing. Are you saying that the Cubs should have taken an extended period of not attempting to win games at the major league level in order to focus entirely on the farm system? If so, I strongly disagree with you. It's very possible to build a good, sustainable farm system while also making efforts to contend at the major league level. Plenty of big market teams have done it and the Cubs could have to - and they tried. However, their failure came in not targeting the right players. They focused solely on big time athletes with little to no baseball skills on the offensive side, and extremely hard throwers with little to no control on the pitching side. Too many of those players flamed out and that led to highly rated farm systems not panning out the way they should have. Their failure in the farm had nothing to do with their attempts at winning each season at the major league level and it wasn't due to lack of funds or resources put into the farm, there was plenty of both. The failure came in what types of players they targeted. No, not saying that at all. Quite the opposite. The goal should always be winning. I am in complete agreement that large market teams have options available that allow for building from within while also pursuing FA acquisitions. My criticism is that the Cubs have been terrible on both fronts to the point that a massive re-tooling is needed. I don't criticize Hendry for trying. I criticize the result. Fast forward to today, and we have a tear-down/ rebuild in progress. Much needed and long overdue. That said, I think that Theo and company will pull the trigger on a big ticket FA if a deal makes sense. The money and years of any such deal have to jive with the mission statement and benefit the future of the franchise. Thus far, I haven't seen any moves that I wish would have been made. I have every confidence in this group to build the team the right way moving forward. Both at the major and minor league levels. For that, I'm willing to give them some time to lay out the big picture. Would you be willing to overpay for an impact player in free agency by giving additional years that don't make sense based upon expected production? The market seems to be saying that if you want one of these guys you are going to have to do that because if you don't someone else will.

I think you are being far too pessimistic and are drawing conclusions based purely on conjecture. Were you making these statements 2 years into the new front office, it would be understandable. Simply stated, we do not have any idea of the big picture just yet. To address the bold above: Soto and Marmol are known commodities. They are not prospects and do not have large upside or downside. They are what they are. They are established major league players and their value will not change accordingly. They are both valuable trading chips. Signing Cespedes or Soler et al will have an impact on the farm system rating should those moves happen. In the case of Cespedes, he will not be in the minor leagues for long, if at all, so the point is moot. That said, the plan Theo and the front office is working as a whole will boost the farm system rating much quicker than signing a couple of high impact players. The farm is rated as a whole, from top to bottom, not by impact or major league ready prospects. What major league roster is this based on? Was there a poll taken? Yes, fans that have waited for better than a century will not wait another 2-3 years for a perennial contender. /hyperbole. Looks like someone is trying to beat the rush. So it is your belief that where veterans are concerned recent performance has no bearing on value? That recent performance can in no way signal decline or injury or be predictive of future performance. The OP stated that the Cubs could have a top five system next year. My belief is that outside of Cespedes or Soler, no IFA signing is going to seriously affect this rating as soon as next year and probably not for three or more years. I also contend that if there are two similar systems, the system with the most major league ready talent is going to be rated higher so it does affect the ratings. The orginal poster suggested that the near-term transactions would be one and two year deals to veterans and these guys would be sold off at the deadline if it made sense. The remainder of the roster would be made of players from within the system. That sounds like a lot of roster turnover on the big league team and doesn't sound overly talented if it is made up of guys who couldn't get better than a one or two year offer. Yes, I do believe there was a poll taken. Look at what happened to attendance last fall. Losing breeds apathy and/or anger. Booing is much more prevalent at Wrigley than it used to be. The fans got a taste of success, liked it, and are wanting/expecting more. People know that Cubs tickets are expensive. They also know that the Cubs are a big market team, like the Yankees (I know they're not like the Yankees), Red Sox, Phillies and Angels, Dodgers. Expectations are that Cubs should be able to be competitive. You flatter me with your final comment. I'm just one fan with an opinion. I think it could get pretty ugly if the Cubs have back to back to back to back 90+ loss seasons. I certainly could be wrong about that, but just like everyone else, I don't think I am.

I think you are being too optimistic. Garza will net some good assets and if you're going to trade him you do it now at his highest value. Trading Soto or Marmol now is probably selling low and if they don't start off strong in 2012 you aren't going to get much for either. Byrd and Zambrano are not going to get you anything more than a high ceiling low A baller or two that haven't performed to date. No IFA signing short of Cespedes or Soler is going to bump the system's rating for at least a couple of years and probably more. So this team is a long way from becoming a top five system as soon as next year. The players traded for Gio and Cahill were not high ceiling guys in the low minors. They were either major league ready or nearly major league ready. It is going to take a minimum of three years for the high-end guys that the Cubs drafted last year, or signed via IFA, to get to that point. This, using your scenario, all while the major league team flounders, with new players every season plus a few farmhands, and wastes Castro's cheap seasons. Finally, I think a very small minority of fans are willing to wait three or four years for this plan to take place. If the average Cub fan looks at what they are paying to watch a game and then looks at the players they are watching and are being told how payroll has taken a hit selling off all of these veterans there will be some ticked off fans. The local media will have a field day passing out torches and pitchforks.

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. I think most people are aware of that, they're just willing to assume that risk to get the production he'd provide in the first 4-5 years of the contract. I think they're unfortunately forgetting how bad Soriano is right now in a similar situation. I don't think Fielder will end that badly at the plate, but he certainly won't be worth anywhere near what he's getting paid in years 7 and 8 of a contract. How can you forget about the highest paid player still on the team. Is Soriano truly holding the Cubs back from competing next year? I don't think so and that is with the disaster that Hendry created in his last decade of drafting and developing players. If Theo and Hoyer are as good as people believe there is absolutely no reason that they can't build the Cubs' system up to deal with a couple of unproductive years from Fielder seven or eight years down the line.

Think there would be any way to sneak a vesting option into the sixth and seventh years if the Cubs are giving the opt out?

How about Big Wood and Little Wood.

I didn't mean to say that. There just isn't going to be people jumping over each other to make a deal for them. It has to be the right team, at the right time, and the right price. I think either Kyle or you said they had non-zero value yesterday. I would agree with that.

Heck no. top 5? I mean, I can understand KG's optimistic take of 11th in the system, but top 5? Baez, Brett Jackson, Szczur, McNutt, Rhee Maples, Wells, and etcetera would easily top him for me. He's not that much more advanced than Marco Hernandez, and hernandez has a better shot to stick at short, so I'd take Marco over him. Our system isn't terrible. Even almost all of the key analyzers out there have acknwoledged that we aren't terrible. Below average, yes. But for a Jose Altuve type to be top 5 would mean a terrible system. I agree, I think the prevailing thought that the Cubs system is terrible, is dead wrong. The biggest problem with the system though is that most of the really promising players are still at the lower levels of the system. Torreyes will fit in nicely with all of the lower level infield prospects and give the Cubs more room for error in hoping that they can develop some of those guys into useful players. Between DeVoss, Hernandez, Watkins, Baez, Watkins and Torreyes the future middle infield is looking promising. The problem with the Cubs' system, as I see it, is that right now there aren't any stars. There are a lot of guys who probably make it to the big leagues but it lacks star power. Definitely fair. The "star" potential is largely in the lower levels. Very low levels.

Are they going to be that good by 2013, though? That'd be a massive scalping if we got two players in the Garza deal who are good enough to have a major impact on the 2013 season. And with that offense, the bat we got would absolutely have to make a major impact for us to have a chance. I'd want the bat closer to the majors than the arm. My imagined rotation had the pitcher either slotted as the #5 in 2013 or even using McNutt as the #5.