pccubfan

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.

The rotation would look pretty good, but that offense is kind of bad. Prince and Castro are the best two hitters - and the only legitimately good ones - and then you have a 31 year old Soto, a developing BJax, an aging DeJesus, and Barney. That corner OF better be really good if we're going to be very competitive for anything other than .500. If I were trading Garza, I'd be looking for a pitcher with the potential to replace or be better than Garza, and a potential stud 1B/RF/LF. If the Cubs have signed Fielder then it would be a corner outfielder. Looking at what Latos and Gio returns were, I'd think that getting two players that meet the criteria mentioned is doable.

Obviously. They're already building for the next good team. Holding onto the guys I mentioned isn't advancing the process whatsoever, though. I'd rather see them traded versus just letting their contracts run out. I laughed at this. Setting the Winter Meetings One GM to another GM: I'm looking to get into line to talk with the Cubs about Zambrano, Dempster, Soriano and Marmol. Any idea where it starts? The other GM: Mouth wide open with a look of WTF.

You'd have to get some significant major league talent for Garza, I think. After this season, Dempster and Z are both off the books - which frees up money, but also takes away two fairly quality arms from the rotation. We'd be looking at a rotation of Wood/Shark/Cashner and whichever two FA pitchers we signed, if that many end up being available and if the bidding doesn't go so high that it doesn't make sense to sign two. We'd be looking at a pretty good rotation, but still wouldn't have much offensively outside of Prince. We might be able to get into the low 80s in wins, but that's probably our ceiling for next year. And all that said, I'd rather have given Pujols 10/275 this year than give a FA starting pitcher a 6-8 year, massive money deal - even one on the right side of 30. Pitchers are massive injury risks, especially those who have thrown a bunch of innings like the guys who may be available have. I'd rather the Cubs had signed Pujols too but that train has left the station. It doesn't appear to me that the Cubs are going to be willing to take a leap of faith in the FA market currently. That will definitely slow down the process. A Cain, Hamels, Wood, Cashner/Shark, and pitcher (Garza return)/McNutt would make a competitive rotation. Add Fielder to Castro, DeJesus, Soto, Bjax, Barney and a corner outfielder (Garza return) and the offense could be improved enough to be very competitive.

Taking 2 years to rebuild a large market team to be "ready" to compete in the NL Central isn't what I envisioned when we hired the boy genius. As many have posted, there's no reason the Cubs can't rebuild while fielding a decent team in 2012 and "a factor in the NL Central" in 2013. Not getting the hate this early for the new front office. Regardless of what "many have posted", I'll put my trust in the people in place that are actually making the decisions and spending their pwn money. No reason to lash out just because your own ideas or those of others here are not being adopted by the brand new brain-trust. I'm sure it's nothing personal. They are doing the jobs they were hired to do. At this early stage, saying the team will not be "decent" in 2012 is nothing more than a speculative rant. Maybe this message board should be shut down until opening day. As long as people are willing to keep an open mind and re-assess as transactions are completed I don't see any harm in discussing the Cubs' prospects based upon the team's composition at that time.

At this point we have to give up on the seasons - there's just no way to put together a competitive team for 2012 and it'd be pretty hard to come up with one for 2013 without investing a ton of money. I guess maybe we'd have a chance to backdoor our way in by signing Prince, giving Jackson a (likely) silly contract, and adding Cespedes and him doing really well on the ML team. Basically, though, we're committed to this 2+ year rebuilding process, so I'll just sit back and enjoy awesome rebuild trades like this one. I don't know. Signing Prince then trading Garza this offseason and then buying two top shelf pitchers next offseason could make this team very competitive in 2013. I'm not sure you could convince Fielder to sign, but if you could, that would allow the Cubs to use the return from Garza to fill other needs. It doesn't seem too likely a scenario based upon what we've seen to date, but I do think that it could work.

Very impressed by this trade. Not only did the Cubs make out with talent but they are saving $2.5 million.

If this is true, what are the chances that the organization has a realistic view of what it will do to revenues. If you want to put a Pirates product on the field and charge Cubs prices it would seem that you are looking at a major hit to the attendance numbers.

Like gooney said, I don't think Theo is doing his best to ensure that we don't win in 2012, I just don't see a path to contention at this point. This team needed a decent amount of help to make it capable of contending next year, it's gotten worse since the offseason began, and most of the impact FAs/trade targets are off the market. If you see a way to make this team one that can win 82-85+ games next year, I'd love to hear it. I just don't see it without a huge amount of luck. Maybe if they get enough gritty gamers they can place all of their defenders directly in front of the hitter so any balls hit will simply smash into one guy and they will have 6 others available to pick it up and throw the guy out at first. You won't give up any runs and even this lineup should be able to score enough to win when you shutout the opponent. Maybe that is Reed's role. He's going to act as the wall in front of home plate.

With the right moves I fully believe they could have had a shot at contending in a weak division in 2012. If nothing else, they could have set themselves up to be the favorites in 2013. Now, it's going to take some really good moves to simply have a shot to contend in 2013, and that's if the Brewers, Cardinals, and Reds don't make substantial improvements in the next year. We've had this Prince/Pujols discussion more than a couple times and I'd guess you're aware that I believe a drop off the cliff isn't likely for either Prince or Pujols in the next year or two. I think you can still get 4-5 highly productive years out of both. That's plenty of time to bring in either, sign Darvish or a FA next year, and be the favorites in 2013 with a chance to contend this year. If you have the budgetary room for Soler and Cespedes, even better. In that scenario, you've added as few as 2 and as many as 4 long term assets and should still have the baseball budget (if it's holding steady) to spend as needed in the draft and IFA to restock the minors. If the money's not there for all of that, then a full rebuild is more understandable. But if the funds are there, then punting the next couple of years is completely unnecessary. We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the Cubs' prospects in 2012. I would have been happy going after Darvish. I hope they do go after the Cubans. And of course I hope they are as aggressive spending money on the draft as the new CBA allows. You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me. Again, why are Theo and Hoyer being paid so much? On the one hand, you believe that they will be able to build this team into a consistent winner through their drafting. Yet you aren't willing to also come to terms with these home grown assets providing cheap production to offset a less than perfect situation with Pujols or Fielder. I will give you that Pujols and Fielder are likely to be overpaid in the later years of their contracts but in my lingo a player that can produce for five or six years into the future is not a short-term asset.

With the right moves I fully believe they could have had a shot at contending in a weak division in 2012. If nothing else, they could have set themselves up to be the favorites in 2013. Now, it's going to take some really good moves to simply have a shot to contend in 2013, and that's if the Brewers, Cardinals, and Reds don't make substantial improvements in the next year. We've had this Prince/Pujols discussion more than a couple times and I'd guess you're aware that I believe a drop off the cliff isn't likely for either Prince or Pujols in the next year or two. I think you can still get 4-5 highly productive years out of both. That's plenty of time to bring in either, sign Darvish or a FA next year, and be the favorites in 2013 with a chance to contend this year. If you have the budgetary room for Soler and Cespedes, even better. In that scenario, you've added as few as 2 and as many as 4 long term assets and should still have the baseball budget (if it's holding steady) to spend as needed in the draft and IFA to restock the minors. If the money's not there for all of that, then a full rebuild is more understandable. But if the funds are there, then punting the next couple of years is completely unnecessary. This.

The only way I see it being necessary is if the Ricketts value the renovations and more peripheral improvements right now more than putting a good product on the field. If they're pouring enough money into all of that, it may sap enough of the available funds that they can't put a $130 million payroll on the field in the short term. If that's the case, I'll begrudgingly be ok with it because I do have faith in Ricketts/Theo, but if that's not the case then there's absolutely no reason why we should be in complete rebuild mode. It seems to me that a far more likely (and obvious) reason to enter a rebuild mode is because the talent on the roster is not very good. So let's not try and improve the major league roster, let's try to improve the low minors. Your snide comment might actually have a thread of truth to it if the Cubs had actually done anything to improve the low minors. As it is, they replaced Ramirez with Stewart, and Marshall with Wood. Those new guys are major leaguers, FYI. See the point of a rebuild is to let go of the guys that won't be around by the time you're good again, and replace them with younger guys that can potentially be regular contributors, and help make you good again. Did I strike a nerve? You are correct those players are major leaguers but are hardly improvements to the major league roster. You seem to be very pro internal build through the minors until the Cubs are ready to win. I'm pretty sure that you grasp that building through the system is exactly what I referenced, improving the low minors. You don't seem to grasp that the Cubs aren't the Pirates they have sufficient revenues to compete most years. They should never have to throw away one, let alone two or three years in order to be good.

The only way I see it being necessary is if the Ricketts value the renovations and more peripheral improvements right now more than putting a good product on the field. If they're pouring enough money into all of that, it may sap enough of the available funds that they can't put a $130 million payroll on the field in the short term. If that's the case, I'll begrudgingly be ok with it because I do have faith in Ricketts/Theo, but if that's not the case then there's absolutely no reason why we should be in complete rebuild mode. It seems to me that a far more likely (and obvious) reason to enter a rebuild mode is because the talent on the roster is not very good. So let's not try and improve the major league roster, let's try to improve the low minors.

wow. the cubs are really hoping there are a lot of ticket buyers with this attitude. unreal. Do you disagree? I just don't see the Cubs having much chance of competing before 2016 unless they buy some impact players in free agency prior to that time. yes, i agree. if the cubs don't sign a single good free agent in the next five offseasons, they may not be good. wow. My original post that you quoted was the result of answers I received from others about whether the Cubs would be players in the free agent market next offseason. The responses were negative to being involved in free agent signings next offseason. If the Cubs aren't involved next year, I don't know what would make anyone think they would be after that. Again, it's not like there is going to be a big infusion of talent from the system in 2013 that would make 2014 look all that much better.

wow. the cubs are really hoping there are a lot of ticket buyers with this attitude. unreal. Do you disagree? I just don't see the Cubs having much chance of competing before 2016 unless they buy some impact players in free agency prior to that time.

Aside from Garza, who I doubt they move for a lesser package than the Latos return, everyone youn mentioned was an expiring contract or an older player. If you think about it, the majority of this team is expendable and the phrase full rebuild doesnt necessarily mean turning into the Astros. Hell, I'd we traded Soriano, Byrd, DeWitt, Baker, Marmol, and Z and signed Fielder and Cespedes that would pretty much be a total rebuild but that doesnt make it a bad thing. If we trade those players, but don't sign Fielder and Cespedes, then does it qualify as a failure? And what in God's name do you think we're going to get of value for Byrd/DeWitt/Baker? If 2013 rolls around and we're not at least beginning to look like a .500 team then maybe. As for Byrd/DeWitt/Baker I say get what we can. Depending on who has the need for a right handed outfielder with an OK bat, Byrd could bring us back something decent. Nothing resbling top prospects but maybe slightly less than DeRosa but more than Fuludome. As for DeWitt and Baker theyd be either throw ins or maybe they could each fetch an intriguing low level guy. Never thought that Jamey Carroll or Clint Barmes would have signed for as much as they did so white utility guys seem to be in season. The problem isn't trading those guys, it is the return you are going to get. None of them are going to get you much in the way of talent. If you are lucky, you might get a high ceiling guy in low A ball. No one that is going to be a guaranty to play in the majors or will be there any time soon.

Looking ahead to next offseason, would you expect the Cubs to sign one or two of the starters available in FA? Unless everyone gets over this aversion to "overpaying" for top talent, I fully expect us to be dumpster diving next year as well. Then the Cubs are a good five years minimum from competing. There is not enough major league talent in the upper levels of the system to expect it to take less. There aren't enough tradeable major league pieces to supplement the system either. And with the new CBA they aren't going to be able to hurry the process by spending big on the draft or the IFA.

Looking ahead to next offseason, would you expect the Cubs to sign one or two of the starters available in FA?

I don't think that it is in question. I think a lot of people had pre-conceived ideas of how the Cubs would improve themselves the next two offseasons before being a favorite in 2014. Those ideas included spending some big money this offseason since there was some payroll flexibility and impact players available. Add to that the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers and Mets weren't big players and the Cubs looked to be sitting pretty. Seems like this could be a sound plan. Then add to that the new CBA that will now limit the Cubs from spending big on the amatuer draft in the future and their plan sounded even more likely. The Cubs have not been successful in obtaining any of the impact players yet and these same people are wondering how the Cubs are going to manage to compete in the short term. Theo and Hoyer are obviously going to be given time by Ricketts to improve this team. I do think that they are going to have to take some risk and sign a couple pitchers next year to deals that are longer than anyone really wants to go, but it is going to take something like that to happen if the Cubs are going to have any chance to win by 2014.

Impact free agents are going to cost you more than they are worth long-term. It's a fact supported by the signings this year. Either the Cubs are going to have to resign themselves to the fact that they are going to overpay, or they are going to have to take the route that may produce a winner four or five years down the road through the farm system. I'm not sure that the fanbase will get behind the second scenario.

I agree. 2012 looks to be a bad year. Hopefully, in the remainder of the offseason we can see some progress towards making the Cubs competitive in 2013. Maybe the Cubs front office will feel better about overpaying for a couple of FA pitchers next offseason.

That spending came at the cost of MLB payroll. It's not as if it was just his being generous. I won't argue you that, but the fact that the club spent that much last year in those areas tells me they aren't going the cheap route.

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half. That adds back ... $8 million or so? There have been whispers since last summer that the Cubs intend to significantly lower MLB payroll. We've brushed them off as nonsensical. Now we're two months into the offseason, and everything the Cubs have actually done (including making an offer to Pujols that he was never seriously going to consider) support that hypothesis. They also support other possibilities, like the team going stealth on Fielder or really preferring Darvish or something, but the "Cubs are going to get cheap under Ricketts" hypothesis has yet to be disproven. I think the spending that was done internationally and on the draft in the last year would disprove Ricketts going cheap.

Combined with the expected drop in draft spending that is a pretty steep cut in the baseball operations.

No you don't. But having a top two or three system helps in three ways. One, it is more likely you to match up with any team that is looking to unload top shelf talent. Two, it allows you to put together a package that won't destroy your farm system. Which also makes it more likely that you will have additional talent available to continue to feed your major league team in the near future. Three, it makes it more likely that you can outbid any other suitors for the talent you are trying to acquire.