pccubfan

But he has had more success and at a younger age than any of his predecessors. That alone should make him more valuable than any of the other Japanese pitching imports. If he can outperform DiceK's first year numbers in the US by the same margin he was outperforming them in Japan, and he can stay healthy, he is going to be a helluva pitcher that is still young.

Exactly how do you see the Cubs acquiring two impact bats and two impact arms without trading Garza using the Cubs' system? Do you think they have the pieces to obtain two of those impact players via trade or is it more likely three signings and one trade? I can't see two impact players being obtained with Cubs' prospects without absolutely emptying the system. I do agree that this will probably take two years. Just one through a trade, and probably not until after the draft next year, after it's been restocked somewhat. We'll have 4 picks inside the top 100 next year, counting the 2 supplemental picks. It's why I'm advocating spending as much as we can on IFA between now and then as well. Take full advantage of the opportunity to restock as possible. Adding Jorge Soler, if we think he's a potential star is very important. Even if we give him a 5 year deal for over 20 mill. Maybe look at Anelki Garcia Speck, this Concepcion kid that's 19, the Korean pitcher represented by Boras, the Dominican pitchers left unsigned from last year's July signing period. And anyone else that may have an impact. I'd love to see 10 or 12 mill spent doing this. It'd make it a hell of a lot easier to trade off Szczur or McNutt or Baez or whoever else, if it nets us an impact guy. Because we'd have guys in the system looking like they'll soon be able to fill in around the impact guys we're spending heavily on. Because starting with the draft next year, it really seems like it's going to be much harder to build a system quickly. And for us to sustain longterm success, it's just as important as signing the bigname FA, as far as I'm concerned. A lot is going to have to go right in a very short amount of time in this scenario. Not only are the Cubs going to have to sign a few of the top IFA players available, against stiff competition, but those they sign have to show that they are worth the money they received the next two years. They are going to have to draft well and get those guys they drafted to sign. The system is going to have to have a number of guys step up and perform at a high level. They can't afford to have more than one or two of their top players to go down to a major injury. They have to find a match with a team that has an impact player available. Finally, they have to be willing to pull the trigger. I'm not going to say that this can't or won't happen, but it would be much easier to see this type of thing happening if the Cubs' system was currently a top two or three system.

Exactly how do you see the Cubs acquiring two impact bats and two impact arms without trading Garza using the Cubs' system? Do you think they have the pieces to obtain two of those impact players via trade or is it more likely three signings and one trade? I can't see two impact players being obtained with Cubs' prospects without absolutely emptying the system. I do agree that this will probably take two years.

Are you willing give Hamel seven or eight years? I love Hamels, but my answer would be "it depends." Who else is guaranteed to be in our rotation next year? Do we still have Garza? If not, do we have a reasonably suitable replacement. How much is it going to cost to sign Greinke, Cain, Danks, Liriano, McCarthy, or Sanchez? Who's on the trade market? If the answer is all of these guys are going to be expensive, we have Garza, and we have an offense that's at least passable, then the answer is "yes". If the move prevents us from doing other things though and we have multiple needs and not a lot of money available for this, then I'm going to reallocate it and try to fill things cheaper. Maybe through trades. I've said previously that I'm looking at this in a 2 year window. We have the money available over that period of time to come up with 2 impact bats and 2 impact pitchers, without neglecting the system in any way. How they get to this scenario, I don't care. It can all come next offseason. It can be 2 this offseason and 2 next. My guess though is it'll be one this offseason, one at the deadline, and 2 next offseason. Are you saying Garza plus two impact pitchers?

Are you willing to give Hamels seven or eight years?

Completely disagree. First off, more than one reasonable target has been signed. Whether the prices were reasonable is besides the point, they were reasonable targets. Furthermore, the fact is they haven't done anything but make middling small market mentality moves yet. They've gone for a cheaper Fukudome with less patience in right field, and a more patient Colvin at 3B. They've made middling moves that probably don't represent all that much of an upgrade to what the Cubs began last season with, if any. So far they haven't done anything big market. They haven't done anything to significantly improve the 2012 team. This wasn't a dead franchise. It was a fundamentally flawed franchise in position to be in contention for the division next year with an impact signing or two, and the financial wherewithal to make that happen. The process of rebuilding the farm system will take time, but we're talking about parallel fronts and a team than can afford to do both. This isn't Pittsburgh. They can, should, and have to do both. Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts. I agree with this post, although you are being too generous to the FO. This team is without a doubt worse than the team that opened the 2011 season. I understand that this is a work in progress but as of right now it is truth. The major league roster needs an infusion of top shelf talent in order to compete. We can argue about comfort level all we want but the market is telling us what top level talent costs. The FO is being paid handsomely to build this team. With the resources the team has available this should not take more than a couple of years. If this team hasn't been significantly improved by the opening of the 2014 season, then Theo and Jed have to answer for it at that time. I'm hoping that 2012 and 2013 don't have to be throwaway seasons in order for this to happen but am prepared, personally to reserve judgement until that time.

Because the media doesn't know anything, and they know even less about what Theo is going to do. But when we're in on the Fielder and Pujols bidding they're wise and all knowing. While the media may act like they know more than they do, they likely know more than us. What they often do is take a tidbit of info and blow it up to seem better or worse than it is to get the reader to want to read the article. However, where there's smoke there's sometimes fire. My guess is that we do have spending money but not as much as we have in the past. We are interested in guys like Fielder, Darvish, Cespedes, and Solar but if the bidding gets out of hand we'll now out and find other ways to improve the team in a long term sense. They may not be as flashy as Pujols, Fielder, or Darvish but as excited as everyone was to put this front office together, it's stupid to turn on them just because we were unable to land a big fish this off season which many people, experts or otherwise didn't expect to happen. It will be a tall order improving this team quickly without a FA signing. The Cubs just don't have many assets available for trade so they are probably not going to be able to make a significant acquisition without taking a significant hit. If the Cubs don't make a big splash with a free agent this offseason, punting 2012 and selling Garza probably is the way to go.

I agree that the Cubs don't have a lot of assets, in terms of players. Their most available asset is the idle cash that they have sitting on the sidelines. Fielder is an asset that can be acquired by using the Cubs' most abundant asset, cash. They need to be willing to overpay a little to turn their cash asset into a player. I understand that by trading Garza, an asset, you can get more assets (prospects). I guess I don't have a problem trading him as long as the package they get in return is equal to or greater in value then what the Cubs gave up to acquire him just last year.

I'm too lazy to look this up to see if it is accurate, but if it is, that is funny.

What if they're in at 6/$180? That would only leave $40M on the table and by then, who knows what you'll be able to get on a 4/$40M deal. I don't think it's a bad strategy if that's the way they're going. No idea if being the highest paid player by AAV would be something he's interested in, but it's certainly a possibility and worth a shot. They could throw some vesting years on the end too. If he meets some threshold in the last 2 years, it vests another year at $25mil or something. Who knows how long he'd have to wait for some of that money. It could be that he's being paid by the Marlins or Cards another five years after his ten year contract is completed. That would reduce the real value of the contract and make an up front deal much more attractive.

But here's the rub. All the top-line pitchers on the market next year are going to be signed by somebody willing to give them more years than what is wise to give to a pitcher. Because of the position the current team finds itself, in order to compete in the short term, the Cubs are going to have to be willing to extend beyond their comfort zone in contract length for one or two of these guys. I'm ok with that because the value of the front office should be the ability to offset some of these "bad contracts" with cheap guys to offset the contracts by the time they have gone bad. If the front office the Cubs have put in place can't accomplish that then I'm not sure why they are so highly thought of.

I can understand not wanting to go beyond five years for Fielder, but I can't imagine realistically believing that five years will be enough. I know I'd rather give Fielder a six and/or seventh year than give one of the pitchers a sixth and/or seventh year next year. Unfortunately, I think the Cubs have little choice but to do both thanks to the current state of the major league team and upper minor league players within the Cubs' system. Six years on Fielder doesn't bother me. Even seven I could bite the bullet and do. Eight-plus is too much. How many years do you feel confident about getting high-level production? How many years after do you feel confident getting above average production?

I can understand not wanting to go beyond five years for Fielder, but I can't imagine realistically believing that five years will be enough. I know I'd rather give Fielder a six and/or seventh year than give one of the pitchers a sixth and/or seventh year next year. Unfortunately, I think the Cubs have little choice but to do both thanks to the current state of the major league team and upper minor league players within the Cubs' system.

Everyone's overpriced at some point. Not necessarily while you are paying them.

Someone a page or two back already posted a pretty reasonable 2012 roster that didn't include any of the major free agents. There's a dozen little places for the Cubs to get better in 2012. The rotation gets healthier, we stop hitting Baker against the wrong-armed pitchers, we make Tyler Colvin go away. It's not tanking to pass on overpriced, big-name free agents. If they are overpriced. I'm still hopeful on Fielder. Overpriced? They very well could be at the end of their contract but prior to that time you've given yourself an opportunity to compete. Without signing them you're hoping to provide yourself an opportunity to compete that may never come along.

Patience is fine for the small market teams, because they have little choice. If the Cubs were loaded with high-end talent that was near major league ready or had a bevy of assets that could net that talent then fine. The Cubs have neither. They are going to have to live with overpaying a star or two in free agency.

The Angel of Death

The point is that the Marlins made the playoffs twice. Big whoop. The fact that they won the WS twice in that time was just a fluke. I don't value their model any more than I would any other team that made the playoffs twice in almost two decades. It's the same principle that leads me to be more impressed with Epstein's consistent playoff appearances with Boston than the two WS rings. Who says the Marlins wouldn't have kept their team together had they lost one of the WS? Maybe they go to the playoffs three times more, but don't win any more rings. They won two and that is a huge accomplishment for a team that doesn't have the resources of the Red Sox.

This. The way you win the most titles is by making it to the playoffs as much as possible, not loading up for the occasional run. And yet, the Marlins won just as many in the 90s as the Braves. They've also won since that decade. My point is we probably shouldn't be hammering away at their signings this offseason. They've tried this approach two times in the past and it has worked. They have set themselves up to have a three or four year window to win it all.

Anyone would because the Braves competed in many WS and actually won one. If they hadn't won that one, would you still pick the Braves?

If a chronic gambler triples his paycheck at the craps table a few times in a row, it doesn't mean it was a good bet. The difference is that Loria isn't playing with his paycheck, he is playing with his winnings.

The Marlins are getting ripped pretty good on here, but if this spending spree results in a third ring in their short history, it would make it pretty hard to deny their method. I'd suffer through three or four bad years if it meant a championship or two.

I like Jebadore. The best one I came up with was Theoyer Hoystein, imo. too dairycowish Oh the irony.

Shouldn't that net the Cubs Profar?

Well said, I couldn't agree more. I could easily see them going after Rasmus and using Broxton as part of that deal. I was confused with what TT wrote, but I think he is talking about Soria being the one traded.