davell

I've wanted Garza dealt as much or more than anyone. But we missed our chance. I guess it's possible we could vet a "Greinke/Angels" type package at the deadline, if he's having a really good year. But I can't see a GM trading for a guy that has had elbow issues two years in a row, including missing the last two and a half months, without seeing him log some innings beforehand. If he's making ten mill+ next year. Which is likely. There's just safer options out there to chooae from. We need to get him healthy and see if he'd take a discount of some sort on a longterm deal. If not, hope he pitches well enough to where we can feel comfortable giving him the big contract or to where we can get as solid of a return as possible. But this offseason? I just can't see a team paying up for a guy that hasn't pitched in quite a while. Too much risk involved for them to give up anything of value, in my opinion.

I can see DeJesus moved at the deadline next year. Considering we've seen reports that only mention Shark and Garza as locks for next years rotation, I could see Wood dealt, I guess. Right now though, I think that Barney and Soriano stay put.

It's like when Hulk Hogan joined the NWO.......

I want Whitson to get healthy and think if he does, he may have the highest upside of the pitchers. Manaea is probably my hope at the current moment though. I wouldn't be opposed to Kris Bryant or Austin Wilson either, if one really stepped up. I guess I'm really hoping for a college guy early, then high upside HS kids to follow.

I agree that Watkins is the most ordinary of the group, although I do think he's likely to have a long MLB career. But while he wasn't a high pick, by any stretch(17-18th rd?) The Cubs did give him over a 500k bonus. So they obviously saw something there, to their credit at this stage.

Kyle, just read(yeah, I know you already have) his bio from BA Raisin just posted in the 2nd post of this thread. Sorry, but that's enough for me to have real hope for a prospect and not lump him in as generic.

.281 and 9 homers? Who's numbers are those? While Torreyes only hit 6 homers, he did it at 19 in a league that is at least neutral, maybe weighted towards pitching. I can see double digit homers from him in the future and if not, 40+ doubles. And David is absolutely 100% correct, the player development differences between Hendry's Cubs and this regime is totally different and previous Cubs prospects shouldn't even be used as comparisons. Hendry and Co may have drafted just as well as this group, they dropped the ball completely after that point though.

Personally, I think having 3 of them gives us a very good chance of winding up with an AS 2B for the longterm. All 3 have above average pop and much better than average hit tools for 2B. Individually right now, none have tremendous trade value, but the higher they move up, the better it will get. You were very high on Torreyes yourself, not sure why that's changed, as we all looked at his Babip luck last year. I know I fully expect it to be better next year in AA. I hope Bruno goes to Daytona, as I think it's more age appropriate for him, not to mention, his talent level as well. And I think until proven otherwise, Amaya's hit tool should be rated higher than the pub it's gotten, to date.

As far as including SS into the conversation, which I don't agree with, since these guys don't play SS themselves.....I'd say 10-15 teams have a group of 3 equal to or better than the group of 3 from us.

Considering I'd have all 3 of them in the top 15ish or so of all 2B in the minors, not many. Sure, they take a hit for being 2B instead of SS, but by no means are these guys standard 2B prospects. All 3 are much better than the average team has in it's pipeline at 2B.

Kyle, you're reaching with your new found B2B persona with that comment. Amaya, Torreyes, and Bruno are not generic whatsoever.

Watkins is likely just getting a bump for being at a higher level. For pure upside, I think I'd rank our 2B in this order: Amaya, Torreyes, Bruno, Watkins, DeVoss. But not a lot of separation from 1-3.

Awesome stuff. Thanks guys. Guess Conor needs to be reminded about Torreyes, if he's not ready to write off DeVoss. That said, I gotta wonder how high they rank Watkins now? I guess tail end of the top 10 is even possible, but I guess 12-15.

Anything good in the chat?

We've definitely got the money to go get any two starters we want. I doubt Jackson gets any consideration though, if he gets qualified, which I suspect he will. The more I've thought about it, I could see us getting serious on Greinke honestly. Evidently he wants to play for an immediate contender though, so that could be a tough sell. The risk involved with him is something our guys will study like hell though. But a guy like that, at his age and the fact he won't even cost a pick probably won't come around often. Especially with the Yanks and Red Sox being unlikely to get involved. If the Dodgers somehow move towards a Dempster or Haren type, we would have a legit shot. He's risky as hell and may be too much so for Theo's first big FA signing with the Cubs, but damn......With the money we've got available, I've waffled on this one bigtime. I hope we get serious on him, I think.

Why is longer worse? They're both fairly young (entering age 29 season next season), and have pretty well settled in as above average starters. Having a 2nd name to write in the rotation for the next 4 years isn't a bad thing in my book. For me, it's just the fact they're pitchers. All of whom are risky. If it's an elite guy and we're in need and give out a 6-7 year deal, I'm fine with that. Solid guys? I'd take the short term one over the younger guy, because I figure it's better odds the longer term deal encounters injury over the short term one. I see the tiers though, I'd rather not wind up with two old guys. Although a pair of the younger group is fine with me.

SSR, I have zero issue adding 2 of that group of pitching. I'd just stay away from Sanchez and Jackson because they'll be the two that get longer deals and aren't necessarily any better than the rest.

actually, if we win 72 games, it means we made solid progress. So while it would sting, I'd give up the 1st, if it looks like a move that puts us truly into contention. I'd try my best to trade for the bat and arm first though.

Seriously though, who out of THIS FA class do people want? Hitting is complete dog [expletive]. Upton? I can buy that and I'm not opposed. But who else? Pitching? Is it Annibal and Jackson? I'm asking because I don't see the guys out there that get us into the playoffs, at least not consistently. I posted a plan with Upton somewhere, I at least saw potential and no longterm commitments other than Upton added on. Butif we aren't making the playoffs and the guys we're acquiring are all available every offseason anyway, why not let some young guys get more of a chance and if we wind up 67-95 instead of 77-85, what's the big deal? We've bettered the draft position, possibly have added another young guy or two to our longterm plans, and can still go get the exact guys we're talking about during the next offseason.

SSR, I mention the 3 guys we have, because I am very hopeful they all 3 become perennial 4 WAR guys. Rightly or wrongly, I think they actually will. Yes, I've been pushing 2014 for a long ass time, but I've also said it may be 2015 before we actually see the playoffs for a while too(yes, I waffled on that based on whats been done so far). As for trading away guys, all we have left of value to trade off is Garza. And we've lost our best chance with him already, if we were to do it. At best, it's a wait and see with him. If he stays healthy, pitches decently, but we don't get a Greinke package offered, we may as well keep him. As for what I want to add right now, how is McCarthy, Marcum types equivalent to nothing? Pitchers are risky in general, so I'd rather go shorter term on them, than on Edwin or Annibal, who aren't going to give much more production as it is. Those guys ARE available every offseason as FA. So why hamper the flexibility now when you can go short term? We're just going to disagree on trading, as a rule. I don't think it'll be a problem at all for us to add a bigtime middle of the order bat and a TOR starter thru trade by the end of 2014. And with the 3 guys we have, other role players that are already here, the rest can be filled in via FA and it doesn't have to be longterm deals unless it's an actual difference maker.

Well damnit. He was typing his response while I saw his one liner. (edit: looked at time of his response and no clue how I missed it. Me equals dumbass)Honestly, thank you for the response and I'll respond here as soon as I get more than a minute to look at it. But seriously, thanks for the response, so now I at least know where you're coming from.

Incapable of giving an actual response, I guess. But seriously, to anyone, who are we missing out on? Wilson was never an option. Rizzo's a better fit than Pujols or Fielder. I've brought up Cespedes as a guy we missed on. Darvish? Lets wait til year 2 to decide whether we missed or not. This year? It's Greinke and Hamilton. Does anyone really feel comfortable giving them 150 mill? I'm asking because I truly don't. Everyone else are guys that are available every year. I'm all for trading for younger controlled guys, but it's ideal if Price were dealt the following year and Upton bounces back, because I doubt they'll take a discount on him.

Ooooooh, SSR can write in all caps. Impressive. He also can't seem to comprehend that there's no one out there good enough to warrant spending longterm money on. As for my "plan" never having us in contention? We're developing pllayers. Probably two or three stars in Castro, Rizzo, and Shark. Stay with me here, becauae this seems to be where you get lost and considering you have flat out admitted you don't even follow the draft previously, it's understandable. Other than you continuously trolling people who mention how important it is for us. The higher picks in the draft have more value now. Hence, better players coming in and more trade bait for us to use. You're now acting as if teams won't trade away guys? Yeah, that makes sense. There always has been and always will be trading and having the absolute most ammo possible increases your odds of getting major deals done. With a few developing stars already here, a few role players that can start already here too, it's not far away at all. I find it hard to believe you can't comprehend that either. But constantly trolling with little one liners is awesomely weak. I've written out plenty of scenarios as to how this team contends in 2014 or 2015 and if you disagree, what's your idea? How about actually contributing for a change?

Are you worried about Castro or Rizzo flaming out? Shark? Look, it's likeky as hell that Baez, Almora, and Soler aren't all going to be All Stars. They don't need to be though. They can be dealt long before they ever see Wrigley(Soler, maybe not). I seriously doubt the grand plan is for all these guys to be future Cubs. Look at the Rays, Marlins, Royals, Pirates, some of these other small market teams. The guys that are just beginning to be paid or are about to be, are the guys that'll be Cubs within the next two or three years.

The point being that these 27 year old mvps aren't going to be hitting free agency so daring to spend money on guys for more than a 2 year commitment is going to be necessary no matter how "terrible"ever single one of them look Yeah, so why spend on the 28/29 year old, slightly better than average guy NOW, like a Sanchez or Jackson, on a 4-5 year deal, when you can basically get the same production on a short term deal out of a Marcum type? Please tell me what good it's doing in going long term on those types? And since that's all that's out there other than two stars, one with a well documented drug problem and the other with a well documented anxiety disorder, the question is pertinent. Because neither of those exact two guys are who we should put gigantic money into. I've got no issue in adding older guys on longer term deals when we're likely contending. Hell, if we were a player or two away, I'd give Swisher 5 years. May would give Peavy 3 with an option. But we're not there, so why waste a year or two of what's likely their best production when we aren't gaining anything by it, other than winning 76 games?