davell

Makes no sense because they'll ask and get a ton for him. But he's basically what I guess our FO envisioned with the Fukudome signing.

God, that's stupid. But hell, it means Bundy will likely be a FA no later than his 26 year old season. I just hope they haven't fucked him up completely by then.

Make trades, add FA at that point(or earlier) when you're confident in the base of the team. Right now, I doubt we're looking at anyone other than Castro, Rizzo, and Shark as a definite. Barney maybe. I think we'll make headway somehow this offseason and add another base guy or two. I really have been figuring we'd make big moves after next offseason, but I could be wrong obviously.

I think you have too much faith in 2 drafts/IFA periods to provide the basis of a contender. Our front office is probably the best in baseball, but even the best in baseball can have an off draft. It's not 2 though, if we're awful next year. We got plenty of upside out of this past sraft and about the only thing Hendry left us with was some some interesting lower level guys as well. Once you add those guys to go with 2 more high pick and money classes, the system should be rock solid, even with a miss or three.

Bad, but potential to be OK, if I remember correctly.

I can't blame him. He's sick of defending himself. As for whether he did or didn't? No more than anyone else.

I think they were surprised at how easy he transitioned back.

I think, but am not 100% sure, it's for 5 years. Who knows? That's the only way to look at your 2nd question. If players start dropping into Indy Leagues and sitting out to get more money. Or if the 1st round talents start gettibg humongous overslots and the rest start to suffer, I guess it's conceivable. The best hope may be for Boras to throw such a fit that they begin to relook at things. That said, my guess is now that it's set this way, it'll stay close to this. As for your 3rd question, it's every team that didn't spend big on the draft. Because now, they're on equal footing with the teams that did and will be getting better players than they were before. Reinsdorf was who pushed for this naturally.

CC, again, it's too early to know whether or not there's elite talent to be had or not. The much larger IFA budget isn't even being touched on here either though. Considering there's basically around 100k difference per pick from worst to first, it's just as important as the draft. Having much more money to spend on IFA's than basically every team out there known to spend big money down there is a huge deal itself. And unlike the early draft returns, the early IFA talk says it's going to be a very good year to have lots of money to spend.

Yeah, he's done as well or better than anyone. But he doesn't have the ability to overslot like he used to and even the way teams look at players now has changed as well, because of the CBA. He doesn't have all the extra comp picks he's had in the past. So again, if you go out and try to make this even an 80ish win team, you're losing your draft allotment partially, because you're probably losing a pick somewhere by signing the FA's in order to get to that 80 win level. Again, if it takes us a couple of shitty seasons to get to become an elite team longterm, I just don't see anyone here being disappointed.

It sounds like they're shutting Jensen down for the season, as he hit 140 IP.

Yeah, just think how much better the Angels would be set for the next few years if they weren't stuck with Pujols and Wilson. Because paying him 23 mill a year, plus a mill more each season after is going to be a great deal? Especially with them likely to miss the playoffs on year 1, when he's cheap? No way his deal can be considered a solid investment. Wilson? I guess the jury is out, but again, he's not exactly been great in year 1 of his either.

It's also still entirely possible that a Stanek, Whitson, Manaea turns themselves into that type too though.

I'm pretty sure it was from before the new CBA, although that obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't know what was coming already at that point. Also, I agree with you. The new rules make it very difficult to add elite amateur talent to your system if you aren't bad. I thought there were reports Theo was livid at the new CBA? I never got the picture they were aware of what was coming down anyway. And if that quote WAS actually before they new, then all bets were immediately off the table, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how the quote should or shouldn't have been taken.

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great. Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now...... I totally understand what a farm system does. Perhaps you don't understand the odds of us having "an excess of bigtime prospects". Right now we have an excess of bigtime prospect's names. Until our ML prospects and our 19-20 year old prospects prove something at their respective levels, we aren't going to be able to trade for those young, cost controlled guys. As for the "fictional trade scenario", why don't you look at how many other posters have suggested trading Vitters or Jackson for some young, cost-controlled, and productive player. Yes, as I suspected, you have NO CLUE. The guys in our system now are not nearly enough to do anything with, as far as what I'm talking about. You need another year or two's worth of high impact guys before you have enough to bother attempting what I think the plan is. And guess what? It's not the current admin's fault as to why our farm system wasn't able to do that immediately for them. The last year was the only year they spent big in a time when you could and should have been doing it all the time. This takes time and as I just outlined, your idea of having a decent team on the field at all times hurts the longterm idea of having a great one at some point. As for trading Brett or Vitters? I'm actually one of the posters that's mentioned it. Unfortunately, either or both would have to really come on strong as hell the rest of the season in order to bother justifying it, because neither is worth anything close to being able to get a true young difference maker as the lead piece at this exact moment. So you rpobably work with them and hope they become a guy that can be thought of as a lead trade piece or a longterm starter, but right now, neither guy is either option.

What quite a few people aren't comprehending here, partially because I'm unsure how much they even follow things on that front, iIS the differences in the new CBA and how much it actually DID change the landscape, especially for a rebuilding team. I know that Theo quote was from a long time ago and I think it was AFTR the new CBA had been put into eefect, but I don't know that for sure. If it came before the new CBA was announced, then there is literally no reason to even bother questioning anything. But we didn't miss out on anything this past offseason, other than Cespedes, who we made a serious attempt at, just decided we wanted a 6 year deal and not a 4. And it's even debatable as to whether or not we were given a final chance to match, as that's never came out. Back to the CBA though, for those wanting us to be decent and gradually get better, while adding big name guys, do you have any idea how to do that AND build the system as well? Because you're drafting lower to begin with. You're losing draft allotment money that could give you flexibility to sign certain players others can't, so you're literal strategy is to just draft better? And considering you're wanting to sign big name FA, you're willing to throw away 1st round picks and even more draft allotment in the process, but still think it's possible to build through the farm. Here's the thing, as a Cubs fan, it's been said but never actually done because the prior administration didn't allocate the money to do it and had a small as hell FO to actually evaluate players. At this exact point, we're allocating every penny we are allowed to and by that, I mean having higher picks which means more money. An extra 2 mill in draft allotment could easily be much more important to us than signing some 31 year SP that's average and gets a 3-30ish contract. As it stands, if the CBA hadn't changed, I do think we would have saw a different offseason last year. Maybe we would have caved on Cespedes or possibly someone else. And we would have allocated 15-20 mill towards the draft and gone nuts, same with IFA's. I'm sure in taking the job, they thought they could just come in and overslot the hell out of the draft for a year or two and build the system up in a way it'd never been done. But it changed and this was the next best approach, in their eyes evidently. And considering the lack of success of ANY of the big name FA from last year basically(as far as justifying their deals) and the weak as hell class of this upcoming offseason, I see no reason why anyone is bothering to bitch about a patient approach here. They've been proven right so far and I don't see what the big deal is to put an 89ish win team out there, when it costs a bunch more money, costs us bigtime in draft and IFA, and hurts our longterm chances of building a powerhouse.

Well dew, you obviously only cut the snippet from the sentence and failed to quote the part where I said a team could get lucky. We appear to be taking the more sensical/logical approach. As far as the 5 in 7 year thing, I thought I explained myself there. Injuries or whatever could easily derail a season or two, maybe it's chicken and beer in the clubhouse, I have no idea. Maybe nothing derails it and we win 90 games+ for 7 seasons straight. No idea, but the only point that matters is if this is executed, the talent to do that WILL be there and that's all we can ask for.

I say we call the Rockies and tell them we had our fingers crossed on the Colvin deal. If that doesn't work, let's offer Rizzo for him, maybe they'll consider it! Honestly, Rizzo just turned 23. His K rate has been much lower than anyone thought it would and he has a grand total of 56 at bats this year against lefties. He's K'ing basically 20% against them. You're jumping the gun bigtime. You see the talent there and you let it evolve. He's learning on the job and doing solidly. Personally, I think he's a future AS regular, but if he's just a solid 1B going forward, there's nothing wrong with it because we're building. We don't have to be able to annoint exactly who our 5 superstuds will be right this second.

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great. Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

The bolded is exactly what the Braves did, though. They rebuilt their farm system and produced guys like Smoltz/Glavine/A Jones/Chipper/Neagle/Scmidt/Wohlers/etc and built around them. If you're arguing that the CBA keeps teams from being good for extended periods of time without the excessively high payroll, then it sounds like you're arguing exactly what SSR asked and you denied earlier. Where have I said that? I said it's a bit harder to do and I don't think that's very outlandish to say. Teams are just smarter now. Not many teams are willing to go about the way that it appears(key word) that we are either. And very few will have the resources to fulfill it when the time comes as we most certainly do. So while a team like the Yankees and Dodgers can bandaid themselves into staying in contention during the latter parts of their best players deals, I definitely think that IF we carry out this type of plan, it'd be much easier for us to stay in contention because of a constant mix of youngsters being ready and we'd conceivably be able to both trade away guys when we have someone behind him to help replenish the system, if need be, and also the ammo to go get more valuable longterm pieces thru trade as well. Our lower levels, meaning Boise and Arizona both have tons of talent. Not all of which will ever be used obviously. But those teams have guys that are currently 3-5 years away from making the majors, if they ever do. But the talent and upside IS there. Higher ceilings than what we're used to seeing too. Add in next year's draft and HUGE IFA budget and it replenishes it that much more and most of those guys would be a year behind this group. And if we're bad next year, same thing for the following class obviously. Right there, you're already looking at the groundwork for having a damn good farm system for the next 6-7 seasons. Assuming these guys do their jobs, which is scouting and also what they're probably best known for. So this is how they'll earn their money for us. And as I said earlier, the better the system is, the more risks and high upside guys you can take, while now, you're most likely trying to balance it somewhat. If this is their plan, and I think it is, while it's going to take patience, I think we'll all love the finalized product.

Honestly, I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we sacrifice 3 seasons so that we could contend for 5. With our resources and the men leading us, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to pull off a Braves-esque run of 10+ years. Especially since we're tanking multiple seasons to build up that core that the Braves used. Like I said, I hit that as a mark for figuring in injuries, bad luck, etc keeping us from winning 90 the other 2 seasons as well. But I would expect we'd have been the favorites to win the division both times in this hypothetical. Today's game is probably a bit harder to get there and stay on top like the Braves did back then too, unless you've got the Yankees(maybe the Dodgers upcoming) payroll. Which by the time we're ready to contend in this hypothetical, we wouldn't have the NEED for anyway, with a core group of youngsters not costing much. We'd just have to pay them when the time comes and fill in, as I said with a big name or two.

Joe Johnson was playing NBA 2K when he found out he had been dealt. The first thing he did was trade himself to the Nets. Kinda cool.

Kiley McDaniel just tweeted the only person in the world with faster hands than Javy Baez is @araabMUZIK.

I think it's possible that we all overthought the parallel fronts comment. Maybe all that meant was we'd at least put actual major league caliber players out there, like the DeJesuses and Maholms of the world.....If things go right, maybe somehow you find yourself in contention at the break. Granted, we're a major market team, so we should be doing that, but he could have just been referencing teams like Houston right now, Miami and Tampa, in the past, that literally firesold everything and didn't care what they had at all for a few years. We'll at least go spend 20-30 mill this offseason on stopgaps.

Ryan Brwtt, Charles Cononie, and Justin Woodall were all suspended from the Rays today. Not for PED's. For Meth.