rawaction

Might want to consider Laurent Robinson. The Giants pass D is really struggling right now. Granted, they've played New Orleans and Green Bay the last 2 weeks, but they also gave up 250+ yards to Vince Young and Alex Smith right before that. I don't know that I'd bench anyone you have, though. But Stevie Johnson is the first I'd consider.

Not really. Make it work. Move Castro to 2B.

Probably not everyday. He hasn't played there since 2009, and he wasn't that good there. But he could play there from time-to-time. I don't want Stewart as the everyday 3B for any reason, but I'd be fine if he got the ABs that DeWitt got last year. And like DeWitt, he is serviceable at 2B, 3B, and corner OF (LF).

He's just talking about defensively. From the visual test, I would say Fukudome definitely wasn't as strong defensively last year as he had been the previous 2 years. Of course, I wouldn't call it falling off a cliff either. Seemed to have more problem going back and away from his glove side.

None that I can think of....but they are the Mets.

Cubs got -1.1 fWAR out of the Fukudome/Colvin collective suckfest. Replace that with DeJesus, have Soriano's BABIP bounceback, and suddenly I think you've gained about 4 WAR in the OF even before Jackson shows up. Even with that, Prince, and Headley "coming close" to replicating Ramirez, the offense still wouldn't be good enough to sustain a hit from losing Garza from an already below average pitching staff.

I'm not him, but I believe this team can contend in 2012 and I'm willing to trade Garza for a big return of 2-3 near MLB ready prospects. Assuming you then spend your $45 million or so on market-value replacements at 1b, 3b and P, I think that hypothetical team is a lot better than last year's. I think last year's underperformed by quite a bit. I understand the whole 2-3 near MLB ready prospects, but then why turn around and PAY MORE for another starting pitcher? That makes no sense. Going to have to get a 1B and 3B either way. And if you trade Garza you're either going to (a) get a similar to better pitcher (Wilson) for MUCH more money or (b) get a lesser pitcher (like Buerhle) and make your starting pitching inferior to last season. Throw in the fact that it's going to be hard to upgrade from Pena/Ramirez no matter who you sign or trade for and I don't see the point in getting rid of Garza. Sure Prince would be an upgrade over Pena but even if you get a player like Headley at 3B, then you just equal or barely exceed last year's production.

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins. Exactly. The rumors we've heard alone would probably be enough to allow this team to contend. There are a lot of available players out there. 1B has been well documented, even if you have to bring back Pena at 1B, it's conceivable that the Cubs could get Headley, a guy like Gio Gonzalez, a young SP from the Rays, there's players that will become available if you get rid of Soriano and later in FA (Beltran). The Cubs would still need a lot to go right to seriously contend, but there are plenty of pieces out there to make it closer to happening. I think you're saying kind of the same thing I've said. They don't need to build a team that competes for the WS for 2012, they just need to get better. One or two bigger moves (say Fielder and Buehrle, possibly Darvish/Cespedes) and a few smaller ones (DeJesus, and say Headley) improves this team, to the point that they should, with neutral luck, finish slightly over .500. Another couple of bigger siginings next offseason, and a few small moves, and they should/could be back at the top of the Central by 2013. Looking at the number of teams that have made that kind of improvement, it's not that hard, you just need to have a rough plan in place and follow it. Which side are you on though re: Garza? If you are on the "trade Garza side" then why would you pay money for Buerhle and get rid of a better pitcher? The gains you made on offense are already minimal because you have to replace Ramirez also, but then you also remain stagnant on a pitching staff that gets rid of its best pitcher (Garza) for a downgrade (Buerhle). That's a team that finishes slightly better than last year, but looks better doing.

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins. Exactly. The rumors we've heard alone would probably be enough to allow this team to contend. There are a lot of available players out there. 1B has been well documented, even if you have to bring back Pena at 1B, it's conceivable that the Cubs could get Headley, a guy like Gio Gonzalez, a young SP from the Rays, there's players that will become available if you get rid of Soriano and later in FA (Beltran). The Cubs would still need a lot to go right to seriously contend, but there are plenty of pieces out there to make it closer to happening.

The reason to trade Garza is if you don't anticipate making a WS run within the two years you still control him. Like you said, "having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good". Hence, that WS run isn't on the immediate horizon. But I don't understand why a WS run can't be anticipated. This team is going to have the potential at least for a 130Mil payroll. You should never pay that much money for a team that isn't anticipated to push for the WS.

So in two years you can have: $15-20 million earmarked for Garza or $15-20 million earmarked for a starting pitcher 2-3 MLB players in their pre-arb years. Scenario B sounds pretty nice. It's not perfect, of course. It's risky to write off extending Garza and assuming you can find pitching later. But if the return is good enough, that's a risk I'm willing to take. It's risky to assume you can find a pitcher later. And it's risky to assume that the players you get will become worthwhile major leaguers. You could win the trade and win in free agency in 2 years. Or you could lose in both in 2 years. Keeping Garza is the least risky thing to do. Add in the fact that he's very affordable to a team that has no other players of similar value (outside of Castro), and to a team that has a lot of financial resources and it's even less risky. The Cubs aren't the pre-2011 Marlins. They don't have to rebuild. I could understand the move more if Garza was making 10Mil + but he's on a very team friendly deal. Having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good. Gotta have something to build on at some point. Without Garza, you're looking at Castro and a bunch of unproven players like Jackson, Cashner, etc.

It just seems like it defeats the purpose. Best case scenario, you get 2-3 really good prospects for Garza. 2 of them pan out to be solid-to-good contributors. In a couple years, free up money from Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd, and Marmol. Then you're going to need to go out and spend big for pitching anyway when all that money comes off the books. But the Cubs already have a 27-year old top of the rotation type starter sitting in their laps, and in a couple years Garza will be the exact type of pitcher they are going to want to sign.

I don't see anything wrong with what UK said. Maybe the wording isn't ideal, but it makes a lot of sense to not be sold on a 31-year old starting pitcher with only 2 years experience in that capacity. I wouldn't call him an elite pitcher. He had an elite 2011, but even without the wear-and-tear on his arm, his age leads me to believe he won't continue to put up elite numbers, even as soon as this coming season.

Agree Bush and Barber. Peterson is supposed to be back for Minnesota, so Gerhart is out.

Do you know many 24 year olds with a 120 OPS+ in 800+ PA's? I can read a B-R page -- this was asked in the context of LoMo being the centerpiece of a potential Garza deal. Unless he's going to get better, I'd rather pay for a better OF and stick with my 28 year old 3-WAR SP... or take my chances with Gordon. He's going to get better. A lot better.

As long as someone goes high enough to trump the Brewers. Sure, like everyone I'd prefer Pujols or Fielder come to the Cubs, but the next best scenerio is Pujols to the Marlins and Fielder to the Brewers, and there's really not much that they can do to make up for it judging by what's left on the FA market. This is great news for Reds in the immediate future, especially if they can trade Alonzo for a good starting pitcher. As for us, assuming those 2 are off the market, how would an opening day lineup of CF Jackson SS Castro 3B Headley (depending on the price: Marmol, Russell, LeMahieu centric) 1B Sanchez (depending on the price: perhaps something Zambrano-centric?) RF DeJesus 2B Hudson (acquired with Headley) LF Soriano/Byrd/some guy C Castillo SP Garza SP Dempster SP Niemann/Davis (acquired for Soto) SP Wells SP Samardzjia CL Cashner BP Marshall BP Wood BP Beliveau BP Dolis/Carpenter (the other traded along the way?) BP Gaub BP Guzman Bench C Clevenger Bench Baker Bench Barney Bench 2 of LaHair/Colvin/DeWitt/Campana/other Certainly wouldn't have a ton of power, but would be a balanced lineup with some high reward guys. Sanchez would be the toughest to get as is always the case when dealing with the Marlins, so we'd have to brace ourselves for LaHair at 1st as a backup plan unless of course we kept Z and tried to move Garza for a Alonzo or Montero centric package and try them at 1st. That's not a terrible team, especially in a Pujols and Prince-less division.

Fixed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Forte plays this Sunday. I'm starting to lean that way too. It's the same injury Julius Peppers has been playing with, and he hasn't missed a game. Granted, Peppers doesn't have to make sharp cuts, but he definitely changes direction a lot. If it wasn't for his contract situation, I would put it as high as 80% that Forte plays this week. Right now, I'd say a little less than 50/50 that he plays, but that's a lot higher than the 0% that most people have assumed.

They can also rebuild AND keep Matt Garza. Garza's young enough that even if the Cubs tank for a couple years, he can still be a very key piece of a good team. We own him for two more years. I know, but he's young enough that you can re-sign him still in his prime.

I totally agree. I think I'm more angry that they put him in the HOF now than I would've been if they'd just kept him out. It's like no one felt like he deserved to see it happen. Yeah, and based on how he came off on air....I think he would have been more appreciative than anyone that has ever entered the Hall. Not even exaggerating.

They can also rebuild AND keep Matt Garza. Garza's young enough that even if the Cubs tank for a couple years, he can still be a very key piece of a good team.

OK. Don't know who would replace Deng, but wouldn't really care at that point.

I would help Noah pack if it meant Dwight Howard.

Don't think it ends hope for the playoffs. If the Bears beat Seattle and Minnesota like they are supposed to, then need the Lions to lose in Oakland, which is clearly very possible despite the Raiders debocle yesterday. Of course, then you're talking about a 9-7 Bears team and you let the Giants/Cowboys back into the picture.

Definitely worth a shot. I was a Hanie supported. I was convinced he could easily do enough to beat the weaker teams on the schedule (KC, SEA, MIN). But he's shown that he can't. With Forte out, going to need more than a game manager, which Hanie hasn't even managed to do well either. I'm not at all convinced that McNabb will be any better. But I'm positive he won't be worse.