davell

I think Brett, K's be damned would put up a .700+ OPS as a fulltime starter next year. Solid defensively. I think Hutchison, as a 22 year old can put up a 4ish ERA, 1.30ish WHIP in a full NL season as a 22 year old. That's where we differ on our teams. Hell, give me your exact team, minus Garza and plus Hutchison, with Syndergaard in Daytona and I'm quite happy. And if Hutchison puts up the numbers I mentioned, you'd have to feel much better going forward, with him, Syndergaard, and 12 mill extra to spend in other areas.

How is that just as good of a team? Personally, I'm not that down as far as Brett goes. I also am not convinced Garza's worth more than a win or two over Hutchison. I think adding a few pen arms and the difference from Santana to Raley makes up for the losses of Upton to Brett and Garza to Hutchison. That said, in neither case, do I think it's an 80ish win team either.

I can't see them going backward in pick values, I was trying to project out a few monetary values, eliminating the comp round probably adds 400,000 to our 2nd round slot, and close to 200,000 to our 3rd. Oh, and I would love to find a way to trade into a comp round pick, knowing those picks are mid 30s now.

I have no problem if we win 80 games next year, if we've got a young team. It means we ARE closer than what I imagine. But, using your team, I could put Brett in for Upton and Hutchison in for Garza, spend on a few vet bullpen arms and sign a 5th starter like Ervin Santana, instead of Raley and think I've got just as good of a team. Except I'd have added a really nice arm to the system and have more payroll flexibility moving forward.

So the only definites are Shark and Wood. Garza's a question mark, but it seems likely we'll either have him or get his replacement in a trade. I wouldn't mind giving Ervin Santana a shot. Joe Saunders seems like a Maholm type pickup, but I guess I could see a team giving him a longer deal than the one or two years at the most that I would. Atlanta is going to need a 3B or an OFer next year, so I'd love to find a way to still get Delgado from them. They've got the pitching depth to trade from, so he's still extremely high on my wish list. Another team that has pitchibg and will be loiking to move some for offense is Oakland. They have Parker, Milone, Blackley, Griffin, Ross, Anderson, Straily, and Gray. I'd love to find a way to get Brett Anderson from them.

Garza's bullpen was cut short today. He'll try again tomorrow. Tuesday is up in the air, he said it's because he didn't do anything these past couple of days, due to his new kid.

While I agree with Tim, I also think TT has the general approach nailed. Lots of pitching early, whether the 1st rounder is or not. By the way, Keith Law speculated Hamilton and Bourn seem to be the only 2 guys he sees teams offering thequalifier to. I could see Edwin and Napoli getting hit with it, but I can't see a team punting their draft for either. Bourn either, for that matter. Meaning, it's very likely, after the competitive balance picks, our 2nd rounder will fall around 40 overall, with a likely slot value of 1.3 mill. Some solid flexibility there.

Dew, I have no clue how the rest of that draft shapes up. Ir's extremely early. The point I'm trying to reiterate here though, is we're not winning a World Series next year. If Garza is dealt away, I can't for the life of me understand why the very simplistic approach I mentioned earlier today doesn't sit well with you. To me, you're too hung up on Garza being close to elite. He's a really solid pitcher, no doubt, but he's replaceable. Maybe within the exact teade for him, maybe not. But adding another definitive cheap answer to the rotation, whether he turns into a 2,3, or 4, along with a high ceiling, very well thought of arm, as well, seems like a no-brainer to me. Especially if you can then take Garza's money and spend it elsewhere. The draft positioning and IFA money being higher is just an added bonus. If we were remotely close to being a contender, my tune would be different. But we're not. And keeping Garza doesn't change that. Getting a younger, cheaper version or at least a reasonable facsimile of, along with a big arm that within a single year could turn into a massive trade chip, having the extra cash to spend, and the additions of bigger impact guys thru the draft and IFA puts us in a much better position longterm, than just keeping Garza.

The Dodgers got Blanton for a PTBNL. Probably a better fit than Dempster for them. More importantly, they put a claim in on Cliff Lee. Those guys are going to become the Yankees, as far as spending goes. Doubtful they pull off a trade for Lee, but the bottom line is they were willing to absorb 27 mill a year for him. Time to be afraid of them.

Yeah, it is what it is. Whatever the plan IS, I'm very confident these guts will execute it as well as anyone can. Obviously, it sucks we don't KNOW the plan, but it's also a testament to how tightlipped these guys are, that we don't.

Hey! I've got shotgun here. I'm positive I started running off at the mouth about him being a borderline top 100 guy before anyone elae could snipe me.

definitely plays a major part in it. Like I said earliertoo though that didn't get a bite, I honestly think the renovation is playing a very major part in why we're going down this road. But now that we're well down it already, I truly don't see the harm in sucking next year.

Dew, if you want an elite farm system, how do you propose us getting one, without sucking? One more bad season and we'll have enough ammo and enough players that we know what to expect from, that we'll be able to make major moves forward. The reason the system IS so important, is so when those elite guts come available, we can go get them AND still have plenty left over. One more season of being bad, with where it sets us up after that is a bigtime advantage, in my mind. BTW, the differences between Wood and Hutchison are HUGE from a scouting perspective. Most everyone would tell you he's a much safer play going forward than a Teavis Wood ever was. I'm sure I'm forgetting to address a few things here, but my damn Ipad konked out a while ago midpost, so I've lost my train of thought somewhat.

Yeah, I saw that and it doesn't surprise me at all. Theo just threw that out there to get them to move onto whatever else they were interested in probably. If that was proposed TO Theo, he'd have to seriously think about it though.

If that established younger guy is out there to be traded for. You mentioned Longoria and Price yesterday, but the Rays almost certainly won't be motivated to move Longoria until the 2014 offseason at the earliest and probably later. They may be more willing to move Price in a year or two, but then you're adding a 29/30 year old pitcher, giving a massive amount of talent for him, and immediately giving him a long term extension. I realize that we don't have to target one of those two, but I think you're envisioning it being easier than it is to find an established superstar available on the trade market. In large part, organizations - especially small market clubs - are getting smarter and are finding ways to lock up their young talent for longer periods. Look at what the Rays did with Longoria/Price, or the Rockies with Tulo, or the Brewers with Braun, etc. If you're banking on having superstars available at the exact time we need them, you're taking a very significant risk. When we acquired Wood, he was a mid-rotation arm with multiple years of control. You're billing Hutchison as a mid-rotation arm with multiple years of control. I'm sure he has more upside than Wood does and he's considerably younger, but the most likely scenario, again, is that he's a little better than Travis Wood. Most players don't hit their upside, they generally fall a little to a lot short. So if his upside is a 3ish type starter, then you have to plan for him to be at least a little worse than that. Then if he hits his upside, it's a bonus. So again, the most likely scenario that we're looking at if we trade Garza for Hutchison/Syndergaard (and I'd love to have Syndergaard in our system) is that we end up with a better version of Travis Wood and a little extra money to spend on longshots in 2014's draft/IFA period. That doesn't make me very enthusiastic. Travis Wood is a guy we were HOPEFUl of becoming a midrotation guy. But most considered him a back end guy from the start. Again, there's a HUGE difference between a 3 and a 5. And I put a Hutchison's upside as what Garza has done so far. The draft and IFA comment is perplexing to me. Mainly because adding spots to our draft positioning now could easily be the difference between us getting an impact guy or not. If it doesn't, it still gives us much more flexibility to use our allotments in other ways, which with us having an extremely smart FO, is an obvious help. Maybe it helps us get a 1st round talent that fell, because he was a tough sign and we've got money saved up from what we took in the 1st or whatever.....An extra 500,000 in IFA money is potentially huge too. Yes, they are lottery tickets, but every cent you can invest down there gives you a better chance to add another Castro to your team or whoever. I like taking those risks, especially with our current talent evaluators. As for the idea that teams are locking guys up earlier, that's MY point exactly. Which is why you need to have a truly ridiculous farm system, both to help supply and trade from. I don't know what guys will be available to trade for in the next few years, but I know this: There always ARE guys. Oakland just dealt away Cahill and Gio this past offseason. Upton's been talked about. Felix is ALWAYS brought up. Every year, there's going to be a small market team or two, that realizes they can capitalize on their next available window by trading away a guy considered a bargain. My guess is at some point over the next 4 years or so, the Pirates even trade McCutchen(sorry Jake, you guys will be good for a while). Maybe 2 years from now Oakland has so much pitching, they can trade Parker. Tampa's talked about putting any of their guys out there at times. And at some point, Price WILL be out there, because rthey're going year to year with him. But, the point, is while it's impossible to predict the exact WHO, there will be someone. There always is. And by having a ridiculous system, it's possible that you can MAKE guys available that maybe wouldn't be, BECAUSE of what you can offer. And once we get to contention, we won't be nearly as picky as who we go after from an age standpoint. Yes, we'll stick to paying guys what they're worth and not for past performance, but I could see us taking on that ace pitcher thats 35 years old in a trade or even on a 3-4 year FA contract. The point is we don't want to spend money that's a wasted salary for now evidently, when it's not going to be THAT difficult adding a Garza back when you really need him.

That doesn't make any sense. You think every team that bid besides the Rangers was just [expletive] around? Every article I saw before the bidding thought that the winning bid would be in the $48 - $50 million range, so unless you were going to bid somewhere near that you were just [expletive] around. Because the Rangers obviously told everyone that this is what we're bidding and we want you to come outbid us for him.

Yikes.

Oh yeah, I enjoy the debate. It's not what you said, it's what you didn't say that I took exception with. Option B is an extremely high risk option, since even with the Theo regime at the helm, 19 year olds are much more likely than not to flame out than they are to come close to their ceiling. The trade you mentioned is much more likely to provide us with a slightly better version of Travis Wood and nothing else than any other scenario. On the other hand, we know Garza is a TOR type pitcher and even if we ended up giving him a 5 year deal (I see 4-5 as most likely, with 4 years very realistic since he may want a shot at another big contract), we'd only have him through his age 33 season. There's a lot of risk with any pitcher, but outside of the usual injury fears you have with pitchers, Garza is a relatively low risk, but high reward, option. Adding a guy like a Syndergaard(again, example, not a guarantee) gives you ammo. It's not that you're counting on THAT guy to necessarily come up and be a legit 1/2. It's the hope that he has a solid year in A+ ball next year. That's what you need out of that guy. A player becomes much more valuable the closer he gets to the bigs. After one more season, a guy like Syndergaard could conceivably be a top 10ish prospect and bait that could lead a deal for an established younger guy who's already under control. Of coure, if the guy looks like he's going to be lights out, then great, you keep him and hope he DOES become the ace we hope for. I also think you're not giving the other make believe piece near enough credit here either. Hutchison has 3ish ability in his own right and already has a taste in the toughest division in baseball. That guy is just 21 years old. I wouldn't dare mention his upside with Travis Wood. He's a guy we'd genuinely be excited to watch his starts and see his progress over the course of his career. He was a top 50ish prospect, in his own right and as I said, is 21 right now. To me, I'm asking for quite a bit for a year of Garza. And it fits in much better with our time frame, than extending his does, especially when that money is gone. My way, you've possibly replaced him with a Hutchison type, given yourself a bigtime trade chip in Syndergaard or someone like him, and still have the money to go sign a 15 mill a year pitcher when the time is right.

I can't post from my cell, but there were some good Cub related questions(Tim....) among KLaw's chat yesterday. Kyle and Tim getting their Vitters' on. Great stuff on Vizcaino too, who KLaw is in love with as much or more than he hates Szczur.

I keep thinking of 87 year old Placido still out there. Forgot he was once a really solid piece. Glad you didn't turn on Ronald. Had me scared for a minute.

I really think our FO sees an extra year or two of very high picks and high IFA budgets will come in much handier than buying a few pieces here and there that may be leaving their primes by the time you're ready to contend and keep you from adding the real impact guys from the draft and IFA in the meantime. There's going to be a time, probably heading into 2014, that we see a complete 180 and things shift in a fun as hell way for us. They've been active as hell in doing the teardown, it's going to be the same, when they start the buildup.

Something that has been glossed over, touched on, but stayed away from mainly, is the renovation. I'm not privvy to thrir thinking or the Ricketts' financials, but could they be looking at things from this standpoint? I'm asking, by the way, because I want to know if this is plausible. What we know is that attendance is down, meaning revenue has certainly suffered. No clue as to what kind of numbers this entails, if anyone does, I'd love to hear it. We also know that they're adding as much ad space and extracurricular activities to Wrigley, to make it more profitable, both in the short and longterm. Could the extra stuff actually nreak even with the loss of revenue from us losing? Again, I have no clue about these things. I also have no idea as to what the Ricketts financial positioning is right now. Are they liquid enough to flit the bill for 350 millions worth of renovations right now, over an 18 month process? Again, if someone knows this, I'd love to hear it. So, maybe the extra money from activities offsets lost revenue from the Cubs? Because we DO know the Cubs were profitable even during the extreme high payroll seasons, according to Ricketts. If so, the lost payroll of last year, 2013, and possibly 2014, from a 140ish range down to 100, 80, and 80(guesses obviously, and 80 in 2014 could bear a very solid team in my mind, before jumping down my throat) conceivably puts 160 mill towards the renovation. If the latest reports of getting 150 mill through public funding of some sort are accurate, it puts us less than 200 away from funding without stepping into the pockets of Ricketts at all. Then, you have the WGN deal running out in 2014, so a renegotiated deal with CSN puts more money into the deal, not at first, but at least covered rather quickly. Basically, between public funding, the lesser payroll and the new TV deal, the entire renovation could happen with no money out of pocket, or at least not that won't be paid back within a year or two. Maybe Ricketts actually IS the smartest man in the room here. He hires a group to oversee the baseball portion that's as good or better than anyone else at spending wisely. Knowing that there's not going to be many funds available until after that general time frame. Meanwhile, the rebuild plan coincides with all of this as well. I truly do think Ricketts wants to bring a winner here and that it's possible the entire teardown from Theo and Co. had all of this in mind, knowing that it was the right way to do things, to build a monster team only helped with their decision. And come time for the new unveiling, the new TV deal, we'll have a team just beginning to hit on all cylinders and dominate. Like I said, maybe I'm so far off here, it's not even funny, maybe someone can clue me in on some of this stuff a bit more. I know I definitely think this is much bigger than Matt fraking Garza obviously, but it could at least help nudge us a certain direction, is why I'm bringing it up, along with the hope someone could shed more light on this type of stuff.

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player. Is it though? I'm using our exact situation here. Things would be different if we were coming off an 85 win season or something. But we're not, we're one of the worst teams in baseball, with extremely little hope to contend in 2013. I think the way I broke it down was very fair for us. On a side note, the debate is fun, at the very least. :D

FWIW, I wasn't listing those guys as Garza replacements for us. Just mentioning them as possible competition for us putting Garza on the market.

Damnit.