Tracer Bullet
-
Posts
17,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Tracer Bullet
-
If you had it would you promise to spend some of it? If so I've got a purchase I'd like to talk to you about. Yes -
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. The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either. Why?
-
they've lost commit DT Tommy Schutt (Rivals #52, to OSU), and PSU lean DE Noah Spence (Rivals #9, to OSU) and their top two current commits LB Camren Williams and DB Armani Reeves are both looking around; Michigan's waiting to scoop up the latter if he jumps ship And at least as important, how many top recruits have commited since the scandal?
-
To clarify, I'm not against signing any FAs. I'm against the notion that the only way or even the best way to fix this team is to spend tons on FA. Even the Yankees (the big swinging dicks on the NE) have more regrettable contracts than good ones. I don't think anyone here is saying it's the only or best way to fix the team. It's a way to help fix a team or strengthen it, and as it stands right now the Cubs seem to be shying completely away from it. Shutting out a significant tool to help build and better your team isn't fun and doesn't seem very smart. And why does it matter if the Yankees are overpaying? I'd love for the Cubs to be in that type of position where it doesn't matter. It sucks that they aren't. You don't know what we've done or what it shows for the future. You're just freaking out. I want the cubs to be the red sox, not the yankees. I don't know what the next several years holds for NY, but I don't think it's going to be the late 90s now that George is gone.
-
You are a horrible reader. Actually I'm a great reader. And based on your performance in this thread, you're the last person who should be judging such things. I'm sure you're an excellent driver as well. I don't know. I haven't had regular, independent, objective reviews of those skills that consistently show the same thing.
-
To clarify, I'm not against signing any FAs. I'm against the notion that the only way or even the best way to fix this team is to spend tons on FA. Even the Yankees (the big swinging dicks on the NE) have more regrettable contracts than good ones. WELL THEN WHY DON'T YOU BOTHER READING WHAT PEOPLE ARE WRITING? The future will be handled primarily via trades and development from within. Right now, the only way to help 2012, and to some degree 2013, is via free agency. The Cubs have money and their have been players available at positions where they have needs. Nobody is saying sign free agents and then all our problems will be solved. Nobody is saying the only way to fix this organization is by signing free agents this offseason. Nobody is saying the best way to fix this organization is by spending tons on free agents. I am saying the only way to make a significant improvement in 2012 without damaging the future is via free agency. I agree that FA is the only way to help 2012. But since we couldn't get the guys we needed, not wasting money on 2012 that will be wasted on 2013 and 2014 makes sense. The guys signed this year may not produce enough in 2013 and 2014 to justify the $ they'd require. If so, wait and spend that money to extend a real star acquired via trade.
-
You are a horrible reader. Actually I'm a great reader. And based on your performance in this thread, you're the last person who should be judging such things.
-
My lord. You guys are so impatient that if the cubs don't sign every FA you want, you're just going to have little tantrums. It's pretty clear that most of the star players aren't signed as FAs. Refusing to accept that and demanding that the cubs sign guys on the tail end or beyond their prime is just going to give you something else to hitch about in 3 years.
-
To clarify, I'm not against signing any FAs. I'm against the notion that the only way or even the best way to fix this team is to spend tons on FA. Even the Yankees (the big swinging dicks on the NE) have more regrettable contracts than good ones.
-
Some of us are talking about realistic things. Like being big swinging dicks?
-
Maybe we should go back to TT's first post and remind ourselves that very few stars are signed as FAs and many (most?) big FA signings turn out poorly.
-
And I want a billion dollars.
-
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. I take some issue with the implication that 2012 has been "ignored". Just because the team didn't land guys (to this point) doesn't mean they weren't in to some degree. If they offered Pujols a shorter, smarter deal, that is an attempt. The fact that the Angels and Marlins pushed the price into the stupid range doesn't mean Theo and Jed ignored him. Same with Darvish. Texas blew the other bids (including that of the "favorite" Jays) out of the water, by most accounts. Does that mean Jed and Theo didn't even try? And how do we know the price for Headley wasn't unreasonable? And Aramis is the one who declined his part. Should they have given him 3 years just to salvage 2012? And Fielder and the Cubans are still out there, still more dominoes to fall. It's fairly obvious at this point that 2012 is likely to be an ugly rebuilding year, but I don't think for a second the FO simply said "[expletive] 2012, we're blowing this thing up." Being measured =/= ignoring. Nuts - this would be a good post to quote with a ridiculous yup.
-
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. Are you kidding me with that garbage? 80-85 while in the process of restructuring the organization is a perfectly respectable season. My problem with Hendry is that 81 was the average over a decade. 80-85 three years into a rebuilding wouldn't be the least bit impressive. You call my post garbage and end yours when a sentence that is of no value whatsoever? My word. No one is arguing that jersey and you know it. 80-85 wins and not fielding a team with a good chance at winning deep in the playoffs is of no value when you could win fewer games and acquire assets for later years when the chances of being very good are higher. The cubs weren't going to be good on 2012. Why does it matter how not good?
-
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.
-
Either Theo didn't think Pujols was worth what he was asking (likely true) or Pujols didn't want to sign here (also possible). I don't know if they'll sign Fielder or not. But the off season can be a success without signing Fielder, esp if they sign the Cubans. I haven't said signing these guys is only about competing in 2012. I've said signing enough of them wasn't possible either bc the asking price was too high it they plain wanted to sign somewhere else.
-
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.
-
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.
-
They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone. They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014. No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable. We're not getting Travis Wood for Ryan Dempster, Marlon Byrd, or Joey Etcetera. And you don't have to get Travis Wood. Volstad may have good value next year too. At any rate, his value will be higher than Z's. Acquire assets with value beyond 2012 and use them in 2013+ or turn them into even better players. It's exactly what we needed.
-
They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone. They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014. No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable. We're not getting Travis Wood for Dempster, Marlon Byrd, or Joey Etcetera. Joey Etcetera put up some solid #s last year and he's an asset to any clubhouse.
-
No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable.
-
those are going to be some really good trades. They don't have to be top prospects. Marshall for Wood is an excellent example.
-
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? I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013. Yeah 60 and 80 were numbers picked from thin air to prove a point (sort of like TT's comment about 75 wins in 3 years). But yes, I have no problem trading guys like Marshall, Byrd, Z, etc, for young MLB talent or near-MLB talent. We weren't winning the WS in 2012, so I don't care how close we come to missing the playoffs.
-
i don't mind being on the other side of him if his plan means i don't bother watching cubs games after may until 2015 You'd be wise to read the posts yourself rather than accept jersey's interpretation.
-
He was drawing triangles at the time. And getting paid handsomely to so it. Ain't life in the 1% grand?
