davell

no, but only because it's so much harder to find a shortstop. I don't even think Justin Upton would make 30 errors at shortstop. Of course I'm kidding. I would give up Castro if only because Upton is much more of a good bet longterm. He's got a chance to be a top 10 bat and is only 22. Obviously, I still wouldn't do it in our situation. If we had a hole in the OF and not 1B I'd pull the trigger. We've already got four serviceable or better OFs (granted none of them are impact level bats at RF). A lot of other teams would be interested him and would have a greater need than the Cubs, driving up their willingness to pay for him. Starlin Castro is a better fielder at SS than Upton is at RF, in all likelihood. Yes, he made 27 errors, but his range helped make up for that and certainly bodes well for his future defensively. But, that has ZERO to do with trading Castro. He just put up a .300/.347..408 line for us at a PREMIUM position. With the extra base pop he showed, it's fairly obvious to me anyway, that he's going to hit for some power eventually too, probably in the 15-20ish homer range It's going to be MUCH harder to find another Castro than it would be for us to find an Upton. Also, I have no clue why Upton is considered to be much more of a sure thing than Castro is. Are you still thinking he's no better than Alex Arias and Miguel Cairo possibly? I know you just mentioned that you wouldn't trade Castro for Upton because of our situation, but you shouldn't want to trade Castro for Upton in ANY situation. We've got the pieces to trade for Upton, if we want to do it, without involving the cornerstone of this franchise whatsoever.

I'd prefer Justin, though he'd cost a lot more. BJ has a temper and work ethic issues and has only one really good season to his name. He's only 25 and still has potential, but the Rays wouldn't dump him for mid-tier prospects either. I'd prefer Carl Crawford and keep the prospects. Carl's going to have to REALLY want to play for the Cubs and leave 100+ mill on the table.

I was glad to see that in the chat, I wish he'd actually act on it though.(plenty of central american prospects still out there) Part of me thinks that all they are accounting for is since we had a worse record, we kind of have to spend more on the draft, as far as slotting goes. I'm certainly hoping that there is a whole lot more to it than just that. That said, it was widely thought we'd spend more this year than in the past as well. Which, technically, I guess they did on the draft, but it was because we picked 15 spots higher than the previous year and were still somewhere near(or maybe in) the bottom 5 of all spenders in the draft this past season. But, if they want to, they can ACT like we're spending more to the casual fan anyway. I'm not all that concerned with the Pac Rim. We signed Kim and it doesn't look like we let anyone else slip through the cracks, since there weren't any big name signings over there this year. We signed Sanchez, which is kind of normal at this point for us: One relatively high dollar signing and fill it out with a bunch of cheaper guys to fill out 2 DSL teams. Only other "name" we signed was Serrano, who got 250,000 or so? Bottom line for me is this: If our major league payroll is indeed frozen, I want us to spend BIG in 2011 on our system. Maybe something to the affect of 5-7 mill on international signings and 8-10 mill on the draft. No clue what kind of prospects are going to be available overseas, but the draft looks to be one of the best in recent memory. If need be, spend even more on the draft if overseas looks weak. If they want to model themselves after the Red Sox, as they have said at different points, this is probably about in line with what they do on a yearly basis, even with them picking near the bottom of the draft each year. 15 mill in 2011 spent on the system and I'll be on board with Ricketts. Less than 10 mill and I'll be totally thinking we've got the McCaskey's running the Cubs now too.

You can't have him and Kevin Millwood you spoiled brat. Yeah, it's becoming laughable if any of these reports are true. Levine just mentioned in his chat that we couldn't afford Orlando Hudson...... Upton is making under 5 mill in 2011 though, so he actually COULD be a possibility. Would you give up Colvin or Brett Jackson, one of Archer or McNutt, and one of Carpenter or Jay Jackson?

If I actualy knew the Cubs would put their money where there mouth has been on spending more on prospects and development, I would absolutely say yes to that question. In fact, I'd give up ONE of B Jackson, Archer or McNutt, one of Vitters or Lee and one of anyone else I haven't mentioned. That said, until I know that the Cubs ARE committed to developing the farm, I'd have to hesitate a little, although I think I'd probably wind up doing it anyway.

Given what our limitations appear to be(no money for Dunn, Pads very unlikely to trade a hurt A-Gon), you disagree? Yes. They have plenty of money for Dunn, he's 32, barely a positive WAR player as an OF, let alone 1B. At best he's an acceptable fallback option if they don't have to give up anything of value in a trade. But he is in no way shape or form an ideal target. I guess we aren't going to agree about Dunn. While yes, we SHOULD have enough money for him, we're going to waste it on an average starting pitcher instead. Which for me, takes him off of the "available to us" list. It sucks, but if he's not even being mentioned by our beat writers as an option, then he's probably isn't. Plus, I haven't read a single article that's come out since our org meetings that mentioned him as a possibility either. They all say he's out of our budget. My guess is that until someone got into Jimbo's head, he was going to be our primary option this offseason, but when an average starting pitcher became a "necessary get" for us :lol: Dunn became an afterthought. If our frontoffice wasn't ran by buffoons, Adam Dunn would be an option for us this offseason, but since we are run by buffoons, I exclude Dunn from a realistic standpoint. Maybe the word "ideal" isn't what I should have used, but I think Scott is the best option we have that's realistic(unless maybe Pena signs a 1 year deal). My reasons are as follows:1) He's relatively cheap 2) we'll have him under control the following offseason as well 3) he's able to play OF also and 4) he's as good of a hitter, if not better than, any of our other realistic options. By no means am I saying Scott is a groundbreaking move for the Cubs. But, if he COULD be had(and that's not even a sure thing) I am saying he's a better choice than anyone else I see as a legitimate option for us.

Atkins was blocked here for sure. I hate saying it, but I kind of forgot he even existed. Seeing the thread, I thought they had brought back Garrett Atkins.

Given what our limitations appear to be(no money for Dunn, Pads very unlikely to trade a hurt A-Gon), you disagree? He's not going to be THAT expensive in trade most likely, is a very solid hitter and can move to the OF for the following year, IF we acquire a bigname 1B at that point. Since we need a 1B obviously and I don't see Pena, Overbay, Huff, or Laroche as anything special, I do think of Scott as an ideal answer for US. It sucks we don't have the money to get a true impact type of guy right now, but I think Scott would be our best case scenario out of what's truly available and what we can afford.

For Ryan Webb and Edward Mujica. Geez, I know Maybin hasn't lived up to thehype yet, but he's still very young. To trade him for 2 relievers, even if they are both fairly talented, seems like the epitomy of selling low. On the other hand, the Pads had tons of bullpen arms and just got a guy who could use a change of scenery and has All Star talents.

The offer seems fair, but with what he's going to be paid, I don't think I want anything to do with him. He's weak defensively already, I think anyway, and definitely think he'd have to move off 2B by the middle of his extension, losing the offensive value he brings as a middle infielder. Solid player, but I don't think he's a fit for us.

Maybe so, but I'd almost guarantee that the Mets wouldn't think twice about making that deal either. Doesn't that make sense if it's a terrible trade for the Cubs? I guess I didn't word it right. I don't think the Mets would do that deal either is what I was trying to say. I would think they should, but I think they place way too high of a value on Reyes for him to even be a part of a bad contract swap type of deal. I agree with the original statement though......It wouldn't help the Cubs at all, if you ask me.

Maybe so, but I'd almost guarantee that the Mets wouldn't think twice about making that deal either.

Exactly my point except the subsequent events make it a clear plus (not a wash) for the Cubs unless Byrd and Silva don't produce anything next year. I understand much of the Hendry hate, but he did a great job of correcting his original mistake and needs to get some credit for that. Nah,I'm not going that far, because I certainly don't expect anything positive, if anything at all, out of Silva. Which makes Byrd being the guy having to carry the rest of the load to make this scenario a plus. If I'm looking at it as this: We're paying Marlon Byrd 10 mill for each the next 2 seasons. I'm going to have to look at it as a wash. We may get close to that kind of production, but he'c almost definitely not going to be worth more than that either. Which, in the end, kind of personifies Hendry to me. He does some good stuff and he does some bad stuff. It kind of cancels things out and that probably makes him a league average GM. Which I'm tired of at this point and think we can do better.

Obviously, the signing of Bradley was a huge mistake. I don't think ANYONE has questioned that after mid-2009 or so. I am definitely not a Hendry fan whatsoever, but he did the best he could after making a big mistake. He tried to fix it and he kind of did, in all honesty. The Cubs wound up with Carlos Silva being paid 14 mil over 2 seasons and a 2 mill buyout to be paid by the Cubs as well. This enabled them to go get Marlon Byrd for 3 years and 15 mill total. The Mariners, on the other hand have Milton Bradley at 2 years and 21 mill, along with Carlos Silva and 2 years and 9 mill. In the end, it looks to me like a bigtime mistake by Hendry, but one that he figured his way out of as best as possible. Monies spent overall here are 31 mill for Silva/Byrd from the Cubs side and the Mariners are spending 30 mill for Bradley alone, since they didn't get a piece of Silva pitching halfway decently. All in all, better than I would have given Jim credit for. For once, he actually found a value buy at a position of need for the Cubs(Byrd, which I think needs to belooked at as part of this). While I totally understand the mistake of the original signing here, the subsequent events kind of turn it into a wash.

I hate bringing this thread back up with us not signing anyone(because I am hopeful everyday that I see it bimped because we HAVE signed someone) but Vicmal de la Cruz was signed by the A's for 800,000 yesterday. This was a guy that was rumored to be getting 2 mil+. Steylon Peguero has still yet to sign and numbers of others as well, from what I can tell. With Wagner Mateo going for 550,000 because of his eye issue and now seeing how far de la Cruz fell, it's time for Ricketts to put his money where his mouth is. There are damn good values still out there and it's time to show the commitment to the minor league system, as you've been preaching about.

AZPhil mentioned that it's likely Hoffpauir winds up in Japan. He's at that age where if he wants to make good money for a few years, it's now or never. He also had said Fuld is likely to get dealt. Koyie Hill is probably going to be non-tendered, then given a non-roster invitation to spring training........

Another interesting tidbit to the Levine chat is that evidently the Cubs still don't have an EXACT budget to work with. Probably overthinking this, but anyway......Maybe they aren't sure how much to put on the major league budget versus how much to put in the minor league budget as of yet. This seems fairly plausible to me. But, maybe Hendry is trying to talk them into actually spending on an ace. Could be Lee, maybe trading for Greinke. Then, in a perfect world, you can still go out and get AGON or Fielder next offseason since you'd have Aramis, Silva, Grabow, and Fukudome all coming off the books, equaling around 40 mill. Basically the same it's going to cost us for a combo of bigtime 1st baseman and ace........Like I said, I seriously doubt we even sniff around Lee, but evidently Heyman did bring us up as a surprise suitor anyway.......

Are we even sure AGON is going to be ready to start the season? Didn't he have shoulder surgery recently? I want to say that he's supposed to be ready around March, but that's awfully close and a setback could cost him some time. For me, this is the exact reason that San Diego will listen(but not take) any offers on AGON until the deadline. That said, if he could be had for one of Archer/McNutt, Lee, Guyer, and a couple of borderline guys, I'd do it and probably not think twice.

Again, thanks a ton Brian.

Of [expletive] course we are. Hendry sees Lilly/Marquis part deux. Yeah, I see ZERO reason to spend money on a starting pitcher, unless it's an ace. Not to mention the fact that I doubt either Garland or Westbrook will settle for a one year deal, making it even worse. On the same topic, he mentioned that the Cubs aren't sure of what they're going to do with Cashner yet, as they are divided in their thinking. They want him to throw his 2nd and 3rd pitches better, before they feel comfortable committing to him as a starter. That said, Levine acted like if he WAS in the pen this year and got his slider and change working better, he may still be a candidate to start in the future. In other words, Levine just should have said this: As always, the Cubs will find a way to waste resources and in this year's organizational meetings, the wheel landed on starting pitching for this year's annual dump-a-thon........

Levine had a chat today and was asked a bunch of questions about Gonzalez obviously, among other things. When asked what it'd take to get him, he mentioned the Cubs had enough WITHOUT giving up Castro or Brett Jackson. Obviously, Archer or McNutt would be a major piece and he also brought up Hak Ju Lee as a guy the Pads would want. Later on, he also mentioned Brandon Guyer as a trade possibility. When asked to name his top 3 choices as to who the Cubs 1st baseman would be in 2011, he responded with Colvin, Pena, and Gonzalez. In that order, but it wasn't clear as to whether or not HE had put them in a weighted order or not. He also mentioned that the Cubs look at Pena as a guy they think will hit .250 at Wrigley with a bunch of homers and excellent defense. Also, not necessarily thread related, he mentioned we would go after a Westbrook/Garland type of starting pitcher.

Thanks a ton for the response. Although, i admit I was hoping for a different account of JJ. It can't exactly help his trade value either, as other teams have probably at least heard some of the same stuff you just said. On the other hand, have you heard much about Yeoung Jin Kim yet from anyone? I'm probably grasping here, but figured I'd give it a shot. How about Antigua, Jung, and Kirk? Did you get to see any of them pitch this year? Those are 3 guys that can (and have in lots of cases) shown up near the bottom of top 30 lists. Antigua, in particular, was seen as a guy who had breakout potential this past year, but he seemed to struggle somewhat at Peoria for a while, then after he seemed to have gotten it together, he had shoulder problems near the end of the season. Is it possible that his frame just isn't built for starting possibly? I didn't hear much on Kirk, for the most part, so any info on him would be great. He did appear to have a very nice K/9 ratio and supposedly has above average stuff for a lefty. Jung was a guy that REALLY intrigued me, since he had a relatively short span(around midseason, probably a 5-6 start stretch) that he was basically untouchable, with a K/9 rate that went through the roof during that time. Then, he too developed a shoulder problem and was shut down. Is he considered by you to be a better prospect than Rhee at this stage? Sorry for all the questions by the way. It's just really cool to find guys with first hand knowledge of our guys.

The difference is the way people account for trades that happened. If opening day payroll was 145 they traded it down to 135, but since that was halfway through the year they actually spent around 138-140. AZPhil has it that we spent 132.5 mill this past season. The key here and what we(and maybe AZPhil as well) don't know is how the Cubs front office accounts for signing bonuses. In the end, what I'm hoping for, i suppose, is that assuming the reports are right and we are definitely going to lose some payroll off the major league roster, I at least hope it's put back into the farm. And in a perfect world, if we have 10-15 mill to spend on the major league club this offseason, it's spent smartly, because with a few breaks here and there, it's definitely POSSIBLE to contend in our division and as another guy just said, if you get there, anything CAN happen at least. We're a major market team and one should not truly affect the other, if you ask me. The Red Sox(who we're supposed to be modeling ourselves after) spend big on both. Hopefully, we can contend this year, but if not, the idea is for Castro, Colvin, Cashner and some of the guys we have in AA to continue to grow and next year, when Aramis, Grabow, Fukudome, and Silva all come off the books after the season, we're in much better shape to add free agents again. Just hopefully, it will be done with more than a 2-3 year window in mind, ala this past time for Jimbo.

There have been quotes about payroll that differ quite a bit. Just depends on who said it and when. I've seen things talking about our payroll being 145 mill last year and it'll go slightly down from there. I've seen things about our payroll being 135 or so and it going down slightly from there. I've seen reports that our payroll will be in the 125-130 mill range. I've seen reports that we'll spend more on scouting and development, while spending less on the major league team, with the overall baseball operations budget staying the same. But, about the only thing I'm hearing that seems like a certainty, since it's coming from basically EVERY report, is the payroll is going down and not to expect any big free agent acquisitions.

I think Gonzalez is a casualty of our system getting deeper. He's blocked at Daytona next year by Lee and Watkins(not to mention he's already had 500 at bats there to begin with, albeit not great production) and he's blocked in Tennessee by LeMahieu, Flaherty, and Lake. I kind of doubt he's taken honestly, as I'd suspect pretty much every single team in baseball has at least one guy like him somewhere in their system.