Exile on Waveland

-Losing a bidding war, ostensibly, to the Oakland freakin' A's for Yoenis Cespedes. Not sure about you, but I'd love for the Cubs to have a twenty-six year old outfield that in his first year in the majors/American baseball had a 136 OPS+ and a WAR of 3.4 (baseball reference)/3.1 (fangraphs) (both of which were dragged down by defense). But, hey, something about a fourth year? -Not making a push for Edwin Jackson (who just recently turned twenty-nine years old). Prior to this year, he had WARs of 1.3, 3.6, 3.9, and 3.9, and this year a WAR of 2.7 (fangraphs) (always pitching at least 183 innings per year). Jackson signed a one-year, $11 million contract. This offseason, he's nearly certain to get a multi-year deal. (Hey, maybe he wouldn't have signed with the Cubs, and maybe the Cubs kicked the tires behind the scenes, so, admittedly, there's some conjecture.) I think you'll find certain posters -- he says, patting himself on the back -- wondered at the time why Jackson wasn't more in-demand. Either of those players would have helped this year and in the coming years and neither would have broken the proverbial bank. But the front office, instead, chose to be awful.

Parallel fronts says what? And every chance to contend is "precious"?

To be fair he's also rushed for 16 more TDs. He's also in his second year; Freeman in his fourth. He was also a dominant college player; Freeman was not. He threw twenty-one touchdowns and seventeen interceptions in his rookie year; Freeman threw ten touchdowns and eighteen interceptions in his rookie year. His rookie QB rating was 84.5; Freeman's rookie QB rating was 59.8. I don't know what the future holds, Newton may never improve from here. But this is silly.

I just ranted about this to my mother three days ago (during a baseball discussion about the Reds). Still makes my blood boil. Always will.

Very, very disappointing for this Liverpool fan. Obviously would have loved to have Dempsey on the team as an American, but they also really, really could have used him. He would have fit great (they're now playing a 4-3-3 too) and while Spurs are better overall, with Liverpool he would have been able to play with/off Suarez (hey, sure he's a huge d, but he's miles better than any attacker Spurs have). Oh well, hope and expect Dempsey to do great at Spurs and probably open some eyes (his transfer fee was a bargain).

Colts figure to be much improved, but the Bears should certainly win this one. Mathis should be more than fine in a 3-4, entering the NFL most thought he was a 3-4 linebacker anyway. Freeney? Uh...

I'm sure I'll get accused of name-dropping here -- though this isn't exactly a big name to drop, ha -- but yuuuup, that happened. I was friends with her before and after the car crash (though I haven't seen her for years and years now). Her attitude and demeanor after the wreck were/have been admirable and impressive. Also, on more Luke-Recker-is-a-dbag stories: at a party in college, a friend of mine was dancing with his girlfriend. Recker interrupted, stepped between the two, and said "I'm Luke Recker" (and not as an introduction, as the height of arrogance that she should ditch the other guy for him because, well, he was Luke Recker). Also, his game winning shot in the Big Ten Tournament against IU only counted because the game clock amazingly froze for a bit on the final play. Yup, I'm bitter. She banged Recker, didn't she? Ha ha. Not that night, at least.

I'm sure I'll get accused of name-dropping here -- though this isn't exactly a big name to drop, ha -- but yuuuup, that happened. I was friends with her before and after the car crash (though I haven't seen her for years and years now). Her attitude and demeanor after the wreck were/have been admirable and impressive. Also, on more Luke-Recker-is-a-dbag stories: at a party in college, a friend of mine was dancing with his girlfriend. Recker interrupted, stepped between the two, and said "I'm Luke Recker" (and not as an introduction, as the height of arrogance that she should ditch the other guy for him because, well, he was Luke Recker). Also, his game winning shot in the Big Ten Tournament against IU only counted because the game clock amazingly froze for a bit on the final play. Yup, I'm bitter.

Obviously Wisconsin is the heavy favorite. Purdue should be pretty good though and it wouldn't shock me to see them competing to make the Big Ten title game. I wish this was the very rare year, like 2007, where IU was decent.

Wells was always going to come back to earth. The surprise was that people were surprised when it happened (especially considering he pitched worse each year after his great first season).

Yes, because the scholarship list that includes Cody Zeller as a senior has a lot of relevance.

I wouldn't either. I expect Lyles to end up at UK; not sure about Blackmon (he's a very good player, but coming off an ACL injury I'm not sure he's good enough for UK to take). It's obviously bad news as Lyles is one of the best two players Crean had recruited to IU. I think I posted here when Lyles verballed that it was hard for me to get too excited about his commitment considering his age -- though my excitement did grow. I would think this may be a lesson to Crean about taking such early verbals; then again, I'm not sure IU has been harmed in any way (they don't have Lyles now, no different than if he hadn't verballed). Additionally, while I hate to beat a dead horse, it also should be a lesson, though I doubt it will be, about the over-signing issue, especially for players years away from matriculating. So much can happen, for apparently no reason, when dealing with teenagers and college sports.

I was concerned well before his current MLB stint; it's been an issue for a long time. While I'm not writing him off, I'm also not overly optimistic.

The combination of the two calls is what looks bad. Especially the handball -- which I would not have called regardless -- following the time-wasting call (which is never called). But I was happy it was called -- Canada's goalie's time-wasting was rather egregious and, after being warned, there has to be some penalty for her flaunting the rules.

That doesn't make any sense. You think every team that bid besides the Rangers was just [expletive] around? It's not an either-or proposition. There's a big difference between messing around and making a bid because there's no harm in doing so while not legitimately thinking you're going to win. The front office likely decided that Darvish was worth no more than a $17 million bid, so that's what they bid. But that decision did not require the belief that a $17 million bid would win. I suspect that they hoped they would win at $17 million, but never thought they would. If so, that leaves little interpretation other than that they did not *really* try. Edit: Further, I think my inferences about the Darvish bid are more than supported by the circumstantial evidence. Management eschewed spending to collect (expensive) major league talent last year, has worked diligently to trade major league talent this season, and reportedly will do both again this offseason. Why would Darvish be the one exception? Obviously everything about the Darvish bidding, other than the Rangers bid, is mere speculation.

That's fine; I think there definitely is an argument to be made that bidding highly for Darvish was unwise and/or that he won't be worth the money even now. I just think it strains credulity to believe the Cubs' bid was serious (whether it was the second highest or not, I really don't think anyone truly believed $17 million would win the bidding).

Awww . . . participation ribbons all around! Flippance aside, I would dispute if they legitimately tried with Darvish (I think the one rumor of the Cubs bid was like $17 million? C'mon now.). Regardless, even if they tried, they failed. It's their job to succeed. And, especially for Cespedes since the bidding was not blind, this was not a situation where they tried to trade Dempster to Atlanta and it didn't work out for reasons out of their control. It was a situation where all they had to do was spend. If they had chosen to spend, they'd have a twenty-six year old outfielder with a 146 OPS+ and 1.4 WAR (dragged down by a -1.5 dWAR). Considering the overall lack of talent in the organization, especially at that time, I'd sure like to have such player. Whatever it was (can't remember off the top of my head aside from the fact that it was well under the Rangers), it was the second highest bid. So we'll give them a second-place ribbon.

Awww . . . participation ribbons all around! Flippance aside, I would dispute if they legitimately tried with Darvish (I think the one rumor of the Cubs bid was like $17 million? C'mon now.). Regardless, even if they tried, they failed. It's their job to succeed. And, especially for Cespedes since the bidding was not blind, this was not a situation where they tried to trade Dempster to Atlanta and it didn't work out for reasons out of their control. It was a situation where all they had to do was spend. If they had chosen to spend, they'd have a twenty-six year old outfielder with a 146 OPS+ and 1.4 WAR (dragged down by a -1.5 dWAR). Considering the overall lack of talent in the organization, especially at that time, I'd sure like to have such player.

This is pretty much a red herring. Signing quality players to mulit-year deals is a form of building for the future; and would not have prevented the dual fronts. Even if this team could not have competed in 2012, signing a player or two last offseason, coupled with a player or two this offseason, certainly could have led to a contender next season. For example, signing one major free agent each offseason: C-Castillo/Clevenger 1B-Rizzo 2B-Barney 3B-? SS-Castro LF-Soriano CF-Upton RF-DeJesus 1-Darvish 2-Garza 3-Samardzija 4-Wood 5-Maholm/Liriano/etc I think that team would be pretty close to competing for the division and without mortgaging the future. Instead, the front office punted this year and has all but punted next year. That was their decision, and it made a lie of the "preciousness" of each season. You just said they can sign free agents along the way, even if the team can't contend in a given year. What makes you so sure they won't add a free agent or two this offseason who can be a long term piece despite the overwhelming likelihood that the team won't be very good? There have been media reports basically saying that they don't intend to spend, and I can read between the lines (trying to trade Garza, trading Maholm, are good indications that they are punting next year too). Regardless, even if I'm wrong and they do sign free agents this offseason -- and, man, I sure hope I'm wrong and they do -- considering my entire thesis was an admission it would take two years of free agency, they still punted on next year. Unless you think they're going to go crazy spending, which I certainly don't think there is any reason, whatsoever, to believe that will happen.

This is pretty much a red herring. Signing quality players to mulit-year deals is a form of building for the future; and would not have prevented the dual fronts. Even if this team could not have competed in 2012, signing a player or two last offseason, coupled with a player or two this offseason, certainly could have led to a contender next season. For example, signing one major free agent each offseason: C-Castillo/Clevenger 1B-Rizzo 2B-Barney 3B-? SS-Castro LF-Soriano CF-Upton RF-DeJesus 1-Darvish 2-Garza 3-Samardzija 4-Wood 5-Maholm/Liriano/etc I think that team would be pretty close to competing for the division and without mortgaging the future. Instead, the front office punted this year and has all but punted next year. That was their decision, and it made a lie of the "preciousness" of each season.

This. And at least this time we know going into the offseason we're tanking 2013. I'm sure the front office and team feel the exact same way. They should probably just take a year off and come back in 2014. Well, they did that in 2012, so why wouldn't they in 2013?

Sad to see Soto go. Not because I retained hope that he'd return to form, nor because I don't like this trade, but just because I always liked Soto. Geovany Soto.

At least the third former Hoosier from the 90s to die. Really sad.

Also from that blog post... Not surprising; though disappointing. If they didn't spend last off-season, I'm not sure what has changed to make them spend this off-season.