davell

C Castillo Clevenger 1B Rizzo 2B Barney SS Castro 3B Vitters Mather LF LaHair Jonny Gomes CF Jackson Campana RF DeJesus SP Shark, Wood, Porcello, Jacob Turner, Liriano, Carl Pavano RP Marmol, Ryan Madson, Wade Davis, Shawn Tolleson, Beliveau, Andy Oliver, Chad Durbin My guess at a 2013 Chicago Cubs roster. In this hypothetical, we traded Dempster and Russell to LA for Garrett Gould, Allen Webster and Shawn Tolleson, traded Garza and Dolis to Detroit for Porcello, Turner, and Oliver. Traded Soto for Wade Davis and moved Soriano to Cleveland for next to nothing, saving 8 mill total. Last two moves are offseason deals. Offseason moves involve signing Liriano and Madson to one year deals, with the intent on trading them by midseason. Depth moves of adding Pavano and Durbin. Sign Gomes as a platoon guy with LaHair. Additions of IFA(defecting Cubans basically) over 23 could also happen and I expect it to, if there are any available that are good. Team will suck in 2013. But, for me, a team full of youngsters would be fun to watch. That team costs around 80 mill or so, counting the Soriano contract, in all likelihood. But it gives you time to evaluate the youngsters we've brought up, to see whether they can sink or swim. It gives our lower level minors another year of developing, helping move it into a top 5 farm system and you're getting a top 3 pick and big IFA money for next year already, plus it's going to give you the same for 2014 as well. Two years of that, coupled with what we already have in the pipeline, will give us an absolute elite system. That allows us to play some and trade some. Trade for guys in their 20's with some control that are extendable. Tne Cubs could count the ENTIRE Soriano contract we'd be paying into the 2013 payroll too. Plus, you have the WGN deal ending at that point. At any rate, you certainly make positive moves for 2014, after the 2013 season is over. No, you don't have to go crazy with signings, but you've probably got a better feel for what you want around longterm out of the group that has played and you have plenty of ammo within the system to make trades as well. Which is how I think we'll add personally and stay away from FA as much as possible. 2014 may or may not be a playoff year, but it'd certainly be getting close at least, followed by longterm contendership and playoffs from 2015 on. With what we've seen so far, this is my thinking of what happens going forward. Wasn't my original plan from back when the group was hired, but I understand it. 2 years of suck, cleaning out old contracts, getting younger, stocking the system, new TV deal coming, slow plan, but probably the right one, in the end.

Random thoughts - Wood as a middle-rotation type in 2013? I've started to mildly turn the corner on him ... but I'm just not sure he'll be that good by next year. He's a decent arm to develop at the back end and hope he becomes a mid-rotation arm down the line. What's the quality of the young-ish starter in the majors in this hypothetical Garza deal? Because it's hard for me to imagine getting 2 quality, ready for the big arms in a Garza deal. I'm starting to question if we can land ... the equivalent of what we gave up for Garza (borderline top 50 prospect arm, a 70-100 prospect with a high ceiling, and 2 upper level assets). I think so, and all it takes is one team, but getting 2 quality upper level arms? Seems ... hopeful, and I hope you might be right. I've toyed around with it some. Maybe a Porcello/Turner package from Detroit or Hughes/Banuelos, maybe Delgado/Gilmartin or Eovaldi/Reed. Some other pieces, probably more arms actually. Maybe guys that are controllable pen guys. For me, Atlanta, Dodgers, Tigers, Yanks is how I'd rank those combos, by the way. The guy on PSD with Royals contacts said they're thinking if they're .500 in a couple of weeks, it's likely they'd offer one of Odorizzi/Ventura, one of Montgomery/Dwyer, and possibly Cuthbert, if we'd throw them Barney as well.

I'd say our 22 year olds are pretty decent, too. Rizzo, Vitters, Lake, Szczur, etc. If either Vitters or Lake could become something close to Headley, especially his road splits. I think we'd all be thrilled. We do have some guys that will be ready to help as soon as 2013, but not enough in terms of quality or quantity that they'll be able contend without some significant external additions. I completely get where Theo and Jed are coming from in not signing free agents to ridiculous contracts or giving up too much in trade, but that doesn't mean that they should just pass on every option that will require spending or trading prospects. This being said, I like Headley and while he would cost a package of 3 young players or prospects, he's not an elite talent and would not require mortgaging the future. As I recall, in the winter when we were in talks, or at least rumors of talks for him, 2 name that came up were James Russell and Darwin Barney. If he were to cost those 2 plus one top 10-15 prospect with us getting one of their top 25-30 back as well, would anyone object? Yes, The San Diego Padres. Why wouldn't it work for us? Russell is our best reliever but he's far from Dennis Eckersley. Barney looks to be a productive player for years to come, but nothing special. As for a top 10-15 from our system, obviously, it wouldn't be a pitcher, because if our 2013 were to be put together today I suspect that the only pitcher on the list would be Maples who I woudlnt give up for him. It would probably include in no order Jackson, Soler, Baez, Almora, Vitters, Lake, Szczur, and perhaps be rounded out by Candelerio and Amaya. Who outside of that group would we refuse to part with for Headley? I also wonder if Volstad would interest him. Petco would be a far better place to reinvent himself than Wrigley. You DO realize that they don't have to trade him, right? And you realize that there are other teams in the sport, than the Chicago Cubs, right? You're better than this, man. No team is going to take filler for a guy like Headley. A deal for him probably starts with Baez from us. And would almost definitely have to include another guy from your "untouchable" list as well. We talked about him last offseason and couldn't make it work. He's having an excellent year and they're going to want a ton for him, rightfully so.

Looks like this guy will be cleared to sign in time. Has an OFAC issue that may be handled as early as tomorrow. I'm curious what Badler says in his writeup.

talent-wise, it's a hell of a return. I'd venture to say our group would know as well as anyone if he can stick at catcher or not too. I wish they had pitching to deal though. Barnes is too much obviously and as much as I like Henry Owens, he's too far away.

Let's look at possibilities that can happen in 2013, while we suck. Rizzo looks solid. 2 of Brett, Vitters, and Castillo do as well. Given a full season's worth of at bats, I think there's a decent chance of that happening. You've got Shark and Wood as middle rotation types. I have no clue what to think with Garza. If I have to guess, I think we deal him for a youngish starter already in the majors and a top pitching prospect close to the majors as well. With a loaded farm system and tons of cash available, there will be significant moves made, if they make sense. Rome wasn't built in a day though, so maybe you can't fill everything in one offseason. But trading currency at this point for a guy currently in his prime and about to get expensive isn't the feasible move to make when you have legit options to take a serious look at internally. Personally, I'm not a big Vitters OR Lake guy. But they each have more upside than what you're giving them credit for. The time will come when we start making big moves, but I understand completely if they want to know they have more than one longterm piece in place before they do, and in the process lose some of their current assets to do it.

Yes, Headley is in his prime RIGHT NOW. You know as well as I do, we're not spending a ton of money next year, so that's a year of his prime wasted. It's conceivable, although probably not likely, that we're a playoff team in 2014. Which is his age 30 season. When he's 31, is he going to be much better than Vitters or Lake are at 25? And if so, is it enough of a difference to account for the 10 mill difference in pricetag? Theo's goal, I'm fairly confident, is NOT to leave here having had a top ranked farm system by BA and nothing else. But overpaying for a guy when it's possible we have a solid in house option at a time when we have nothing to surround him with, doesn't make sense. If this went on for 3-4 seasons, I'll be frustrated as hell too. But if he spends two seasons turning the farm into a monster, so they can make deals for whoever the Chase Headley is at that time, I'm all for it.

nah, sounds like we won't hear anything til tomorrow, at the earliest.

Because 28 year old players with 5+ WAR potential who can be had for 2 relatively cheap years before having to pay them major dollars are available all the time, I guess. That's a good argument if Headley were sitting on the FA market and we were trying to decide whether or not we should sign him. But passing on him via trade because there's a chance that sometime in the next couple of years there might be a comparable 28 year old player at a position of need who we can sign off the FA market isn't the smartest of moves. Forgive me, if I'm wrong, but I think you used that same argument to sign Pujols and Fielder. We wound up with Rizzo.

Winning major league baseball games should be the primary goal, so long as it doesn't hamstring the future health of the organization. Building the system should be a means to reach that goal. Adding very good players in their prime at positions of need is also a means to that goal. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to do both at the same time. So you're plan is to just draft better then? I'm sure things would be different without the new limitations, but teams drafting later are certainly at a disadvantage. Theo inherited a middling system and a very poor major league roster. You build from within, if you're going to be successful. Not throwing money stupidly at FA this past offseason was the right thing to do, in retrospect. Two years of bigtime picks and IFA money likely means much more than losing prospects to add a player at a position we're actually stocked at, with a solid shot at getting good production out of internally. I'm prepared to suck next year. In fact, I really believe it's better for us longterm if we do.

You should be confused. Because we don't truly know WHAT we need to target yet. Vitters or Lake could be the answer at 3B. We don't know. But my guess is one or both is given a chance before we fill it externally. If we wait until 2014 to spend money, it doesn't HAVE to be on FA. Hell, it could be in a trade for Headley then. I outlined a plan that seems very feasible for this FO to be attempting to execute. In fact, some of the quotes from Theo and Jed led to me think this is what they're doing. From talking about building the system up, to letting the youngsters struggle and endure growing, to not wanting to spend on big FA until they're possibly going to put you over the top. Next year is going to suck, if you're wanting an 85 win team out there, if you ask me. But with the youngsters playing, I think it'll be exciting, even if we're losing. But there should be enough "known" pieces at that point, to start filling in around them.

Dew, building the system is their TOP goal. They've said that. Hell, I agree it should be. If the CBA hadn't changed, Headley would be more realistic, because we could go spend 20 mill on the draft and IFA's each and every year. Things have changed. Get the system on top and deals like him make sense. Prospects are worth more now than ever before. It's not time for this squad to eat into ours yet. We don't know what we've got here longterm, other than Castro. Need to know more about our longterm answers, before burning currency on guys.

If this was Justin Upton, Evan Longoria, David Price, etc, I'd be on board for giving up multiple assets for a superstar. But this is Chase Headley, a very nice player. Who plays a position that we have two solid prospects at, in the upper levels, in Vitters and Lake. Along with an excellent prospect in Baez, in the lower levels. Hell, even another great prospect in Candelario, who's very far away. Sorry, in our situation, Headley doesn't put us over the top, or even in contention. Outbidding teams that he DOES do this for, doesn't make sense for us.

Again, the new CBA probably dictated this direction for us. For Theo to go after Headley, he has to weigh whether Headley is worth the package we have to give up to get him, plus factor in the wins, the loss of possible draft positioning, and the loss of IFA money. I think there is a decent amount of video game rebuild going on hete, so that stuff has to be considered. I'm not doubting Headley's worth, but I'm doubting he fits into our plans.

My honest guess is the plan is this: Suck this year(accomplished), trade away guys who don't fit longterm, like Dempster, Soto, and Soriano(working on it). Trade Garza, if you get enough back. (yet to be determined). Add as many young players as possible to the system. (working on it and doing very well so far). Suck next year as well. Play Rizzo, Brett, Vitters, and Castillo as fulltime starters, let them absorb their growing pains in the process. See how many of them are still standing. You then have those guys, Castro, Shark, maybe Garza or something you've received in trade for him. You also have Soriano gone, a low payroll that you can probably account for his entire contract in 2013 and not have it hanging over your head. You have the WGN deal running out. You have Baez, Soler, Almora, whatever you've got in trades, Szczur, Lake, McNutt, Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood, Candelario, Hernandez, Amaya, Wells, Maples, Dunston, Vogelbach, and others in your system as high upside types that hold varying degrees of trade value. You also have the 2013 draft with a top 3 pick, plus the 2014 draft, most likely with another top 3 pick, plus 2 seasons of having among the highest IFA budgets as well. No, there probably won't be a full team of expensive FA for us to go and sign in 2014, but my guess is we start adding some bigger names then and also trade for younger, controllable star types at that point as well. Two years of complete suck, solid in 2014, maybe playoffs, but full-fledged longterm contending from 2015 on. System is stocked beyond what it ever has been and we can play some and trade others. But I think Theo wants the two years of extremely high picks and IFA budget. Gets everything rolling a lot easier. On cell, sorry for the long ass paragraph.

I don't understand why you think this. He's a really, really good third baseman with 3 years of team control left and is only 28. We currently have nothing in terms of above average third base production anywhere near the majors, and I'm a Vitters fan. We're hoping Stewart might be average to slightly above average, hoping the same for Vitters and then we have nothing else until Lake (if that's where he ultimately ends up). I think Headley's pretty much the perfect target for us to go hard after in a trade. I disagree. First, Headley has 2 years of control after this one. Yes, he's a really good player. So you're ready to trade away two of our top 100 type prospects to get him? At least, maybe even more. we're building from the ground up. I seriously doubt we take away from the prospects right now, for a major leaguer, to be honest. Maybe if it's a 25 year old or something. Not doubting Headley is an excellent player, am doubting he fits with what we're doing. I'll be very surprised if Vitters isn't given the job next year.

Reed hasn't been bad at all. Plus, he's 13-25 lifetime against Santana. Best of any player with at least 15 at bats against him.

Daytona is playing a DH actually and Burke is starting game 2.

Chase Headley is pretty good. He makes absolutely zero sense for us to overwhelm San Diego for.

Daytona IS playing, by the way. Up 7-3 in the 5th. Szczur's 0-3, but Alcantara is 2-3, with a homer and a steal.

.264/.327/.477 with 14 homers and 47 rbi.

I like Delgado a lot myself. If we could get him as the main piece in a Garza deal, with Gilmartin and another top 20ish prospect from them, I'd do it.

The thing that really stuck out to me was Brett's contact on balls out of the zone. I wonder if he's getting fooled and most of his K's now are coming that way? Because he truly should never swing at a pitch outside the zone, looking at those numbers. Obviously, it can't happen, but those numbers are rancid, to go along with a below average contact rate on balls in the zone.

If the Braves ARE willing to do that, it'd give me serious pause, as they have always done a job identifying what pitchers are going to work and which aren't. That said, I seriously doubt this is anything more than a local guy, who knows nothing about prospects, taking the one name he knows and mentioning them. If the Braves are interested in Dempster, i'd love to get Sean Gilmartin.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/06/a-different-perspective-on-mlb-ready-prospects-rizzo-jackson-castillo-lake-and-vitters/ Not sure how many of you guys read CubsDen, but this is an excellent article on the progress/non-progress of Castillo, Rizzo, Brett, Vitters, and Rizzo. It breaks down their contact rates, pitch selection, and pitches per plate appearance extremely well. Very interesting stuff. Shows what some of these guys have been working on and whether or not they're having success at it.