davell

I was looking rosters over and tried to guess what may be on the market from a trade standpoint over the offseason. At this point, with it being a very weak FA class and a large need for pitching, I see more guys possibly being available in trade than normal. Anyway, Gavin Floyd, Rick Porcello, Brian Matusz, Josh Beckett, Phil Hughes, James Shields, Wade Davis, Brett Anderson(or another young guy from there) Delgado or Minor, Josh Johnson, Cliff Lee, Ian Kennedy, and Chad Billingsley. That's the group I can see being talked about. Solid list of names, which I hope we'd be in on a few of obviously.

Garza is a top 30ish pitcher. There may not be an endless supply, but you can find them.

To clarify, I think that's the asking price moving forward. We lost value by not trading him(shitty circumstances) already. They supposedly wanted 3 very good prospects for him. Two postseasons and an extra half year lost, certainly lowers his value. The return I'm figuring(again, an example of value, moreso than actual names) is based on a season of Garza along with the team acquiring him having the ability to get the comp pick after the season. In the end, I think we'll get something close to the value I've been mentioning or else we won't deal him.

The model for waves of pitching, I guess has to be Toronto. They've got groups of guys coming up levels together. Which you may be referring to, in more of a teaditional sense. We're so far behind that, I'm just thrilled we've got some exciting arms for a change.

I guess I've never really thought about the actual terminology, as to what it truly infers. To me, I guess I'm thinking a wave is a grouping, close together in ETA. Guys I guess I consider to be parts of our initial wave is everyone in A ball or lower currently. After another draft, maybe the waves start being looked at as one draft class to the next? Because a draft class/IFA group of Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood, McNeil, Conway, Lang, Prieto, Amlung(think he may wind up a good pick) and Paniagua is one hell of a group to add in one class.

It is very cool to know we now have one "wave" of pitching at least.

There is no excuse for a team with the resources of the Cubs to purposefully try to be terrible to improve their team. Theo even acknowledges that with the new CBA the only advantage is teams that scout better(or as you term "draft better"). So answer the question then. What would YOU have done last offseason? As for scouting better, do you think it's likely you'll find impact guys in the bottom half of the draft? Because that's whats needed, not league average projectable guys.

Again, I break it down like this: Option A is you can have Garza. Option B is you can have (example, but probably close) Drew Hutchison, Noah Syndergaard, 5 draft spots higher, half a million extra in IFA money, and Garza's entire salary slot available go go sign another 3 WAR pitcher. Why does anyone want Option A?

Actually, I could see Oakland listening very hard on a straight up Vitters for Gray swap.

With the season he's having, I actually think he'd prefer it that way. Maybe give him a year with a player option attached to it.

I agree with your 5, assuming Rosario's healthy. McNutt seems like a lock to be lost, if he's not protected. Someone would take a shot almost certainly. I'd keep Watkins and at this exact point and time, I need to learn more about Rosscup, but he's got to be in serious discussion to hold onto.

We haven't heard a single word on Rosario's injury, have we? That's kind of worrisome to me.

I can actually see a Pedroia comp, bat-wise anyway, for Amaya.

i see torreyes as a sure a bet to be a productive major league player as anyone in the system. he may not have the high ceiling as some of the others, but as you've said, his hit tool is too good not to make it and stay for a long time. if he makes the bigs: best case - polanco most likely - fernando vina worse case - mark lemke What the hell? You just turned on Torreyes! You just blindsided him. He knew you were all in on him and now you just hit him in the head with a steel chair.

Dew, at the beginning of last offseason, I was thinking more of signing Fielder and trading for a TOR starter somehow. When I saw what these guys appear to be doing, I jumped on board with it. I think it's a much easier way to build a true powerhouse honestly. And I think it's incredibly ballsy for them to attempt it in a major market. They're banking on their previous track record to help carry them through a couple of lean years and I think it will. Our system is on a bigtime upswing already, most of our best prospects are in A Ball or lower. Those guys developing in itself for another year makes the system much easier to trade from. But with a high pick next year and probably the year after as well, along with the IFA budgets to match, it's going to be a monster. In 2014, my honest guess is that's when you see us trading for the Evan Longorias or David Prices, those types. And they won't be uber expensive contractually yet either, allowing for big name FA signings as well. And with the way these guys draft, it won't empty out the system to trade for a few guys like that. With our young core in place, I see domination of the Central from that point forward, going back and forth with the damn Dodgers dominating the NL. I think this way takes us a bit longer to get there, but it keeps us there much longer than the other way too.

My personal hope for our offseason would be this: Trade Garza for Hutchison and Syndergaard. Trade Brett and Vogelbach for Delgado. Sign Saunders to no more than a 2 year deal. Sign Upton to a 1 or 2 year deal. Sign Ervin Santana. Add a few bullpen pieces. Lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Upton, Vitters, Castillo, and Barney. Rotation of Shark, Saunders, Delgado, Hutchison, and either Santana or Wood. You're developing some kids, probably losing enough to warrant a high pick again, but probably filling quite a few longterm pieces, to where you can add much easier in 2014 and contend at that point.

Again, we're not adding major FA next season, from everything that's been said. On top of the return, which I think is very fair and worth trading him for, you also conceivably add spots to your draft positioning, more IFA money AND the flexibility to go sign another guy that's on Garza's level as well, when he's actually needed. So trading Garza nets you a mid rotation guy, a high upside SP lower down in the minors, the possible difference between an impact guy or not through the draft, probabky an extra big money IFA signing, AND the flexibility to go sign another Garza type when he's needed. I'm sorry man, I just don't see how this isn't the best option by far here.

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

Dew, I guess my point here is any TOR arms that are currently in the upper minors are all top 20ish type prospects and a team isn't going to give one up for Garza, most likely not even one for one. I guess it's possible if you find a ghy with injury issues, like a Casey Crosby, maybe Banuelos. But the bottom line is there aren't many of them around. And while this leads to your point about keeping Garza, he's not a sure-fire TOR guy himself, by any stretch. If you can get a middle rotation youngster in the upper levels or already in the majors and a TOR potential younger guy, it's a very sound tradeoff, in my mind.

Mentioning Terry Kirby, my wife grew up in Yorktown and lived on a street in Tabb named Terry's Run.....

oh hey, I know you were kidding. I edited my post to note that it's a fair jab at me. And now that I read it again, yes, you did say close to double digit homers, so that is completely different, so ... waste of a few posts discussing Pedroia comps. davell, it's not my home state. I lived in it for two years, I got a Terry Kirby signature somewhere, but sorry, if I claimed a home state, it would be north of there (decade plus in New York, most of my life in Maryland). Hell, I was born there, live there now, but spent well over half my life in North Carolina.

Oh, and seeing your edit, I think it's great your objective. In no way would I construe that as rooting against any of these guys whatsoever.

Toonster, I was kidding about you pulling against him. By the way, I said close to double digit homers, not low double digits. Which is why I can't see Pedroia with him as a great potential comp. And I can now tell the guy you're talking about played ball in our home state.

Pretty sizable difference in upsides of those guys. Garza's not nearly good enough to getting a Bauer or probably Skaggs back as the main piece or even in a one for one. If he had more years of control, then MAYBE something like Skaggs is realistic. But one year of Garza is not bringing back a top 20 prospect in baseball.

I was hoping no one would ever bring him up, so not to jinx it. But that's exactly what I see Torreyes becoming, minus a little speed. I've been avoiding this comp for another player in the Cubs system, and you won't get me to type it out (at least, I doubt I'll type it out at any point this year) ... but the positive scenario you guys are hoping for with Torreyes is to essentially become ... Dustin Pedroia. "You guys are hoping for", so it's official: you're pulling against Torreyes! Sorry man, had to, you left it open......Honestly, I can't see Torreyes developing 20 homer power, which keeps me from hoping for Pedroia. On the other hand, you see someone else in our system as a Pedroia comp? If so, I think it's pretty easy to see. I won't make you type it out, but his name rhymes with papaya.....