KingCubsFan

Yeah, I know. It's too depressing to think that, even with our amazing farm system, the Cardinals will probably still have the best hitter in the division for the next 10+ years.

Are you implying because he grew up a Sox fan that loss ate at him on a whole different level? Yes. I'm absolutely implying and stating that I think he treats the Cubs differently than he did the Sox both because of rooting interests and because of the difference between a first job and a second job. So you're saying he's human?

And they will almost certainly have to spend money on free agents to become a winning team, even with this historically awesome collection of young talent. Completely agree. But the focus should only be on spending money to get players that will help the team win, not to spend on certain players that the front office feels will generate fan interest.

Well, they have the opportunity to fix Castro. Which they need to do. I'm not sure they would have passed on this offseason, if Tanaka had been posted much earlier. That said, the fact they're saying they saved money this offseason DOES create the expectation it will be spent soon. Next year at the latest, in my mind. I imagine there's a good chance it will be needed next year to make up for the 300k loss in attendance they are projecting. I really hope our front office isn't making decisions based on how it will affect attendance. I hope they are, because sabotaging attendance means sabotaging revenue which means sabotaging baseball operations, especially for a team that, as Theo has stated, depends more than most on gate revenues. When the team wins, attendance rises. Plain and simple. It's that way for every team in every sport. Unless it's basketball, attendance will not rise long-term due to one player. Focus on creating a long-term winning product, and higher attendance will be a byproduct.

Well, they have the opportunity to fix Castro. Which they need to do. I'm not sure they would have passed on this offseason, if Tanaka had been posted much earlier. That said, the fact they're saying they saved money this offseason DOES create the expectation it will be spent soon. Next year at the latest, in my mind. I imagine there's a good chance it will be needed next year to make up for the 300k loss in attendance they are projecting. I really hope our front office isn't making decisions based on how it will affect attendance.

They've seemingly gone from one of the worst to one of the best in about two years. I think it's pretty impressive. But yes, I know, modernizing baseball operations could have been done within 2 weeks of being hired, and then they should have focused on free agency to raise their star-studded roster from 71 wins to 82 wins. I love that, amidst all this angst, the 2011 Cubs won 71 games, and the 2013 version won 66 with their two best players crapping the bed. But hey, that 5 win drop says everything about the state of the organization.

It's like the Cubs' version of Godwin's Law. Whenever someone starts to make good points that maybe Emperor Epstein is only partially clothed, Hendry gets brought up as a deflection. Hard not to when you spin things like this It's not hard to interpret that like an intelligent person. Everybody makes up nonsense about what a terrible situation these people inherited. The Tribune/MacPhail/Hendry era left a lot to be desired and failed to take advantage of many opportunities to dominate. But they did no worse than what the Ricketts/Epstein era has produced so far. He inherited crap, which we all know and is what everyone said at the time the was made. People just like to engage in revisionist history now in an attempt to be overly critical/cynical. When Ricketts took over, they had an (at-best) .500 team with an aging roster, the worst player facilities in the game, a stadium in direpair, the smallest front office, probably spent next to nothing on player and development, and utilized player evaluation techniques that were dated by at least 25 years. Quite simply, Ricketts inherited a dump, a disaster, a piece of [expletive]. And while he certainly deserves some blame for the way the renovation process has gone, there is no doubt that the organization is in a better position than it was four years ago. The fact that people actually try to argue to the contrary is laughable.

It's like the Cubs' version of Godwin's Law. Whenever someone starts to make good points that maybe Emperor Epstein is only partially clothed, Hendry gets brought up as a deflection. Hard not to when you spin things like this

FWIW, a nightmare owner to me would've been someone who, in the case of this franchise, would have left it on autopilot, not addressed any of the rest of the organization and just kept the team interesting enough to print money while not really having a long term vision of any sort. His first two years were nightmarish since he did keep Hendry far longer than necessary. But according to Kyle, he presided over a mini dynasty at Clark & Addison. How could Ricketts possibly have let him go?

That they want to make sure they have the revenue generators in place before flushing $500 million down the toilet? If this renovation isn't going to make the team money, what's the point of it? Preventing them from losing money when Wrigley Field collapses into a pile of rubble. If it cost that much to keep the thing from collapsing, the better options (from a business perspective) would probably be (1) sell the team, or (2) continue the patchwork repairs until it somebody offers you a good deal for a new stadium.

That they want to make sure they have the revenue generators in place before flushing $500 million down the toilet? If this renovation isn't going to make the team money, what's the point of it?

Yeah, that seems like a piss poor reason to say he wasn't as good as advertised. It's not like Max Scherzer didn't get the luxury of facing the Astros or the Mariners. The only teams that really lit Jimenez up last year were the Tigers (6.92 ERA in 3 starts), Yankees (14.54 ERA in 1 start), and Red Sox (37.80 ERA in 1 start). The only other team where he had an ERA over 4 was, ironically, against the Marlins (4.50 ERA in 1 start). He dominated the Rangers, Blue Jays, A's, Royals, Orioles, White Sox, Angels, and Reds. Most of those are pretty damn good offenses. While I agree with your overall point, the White Sox's offense was actually worse than ours, as hard as it is to believe.

I got excited about that list for a moment, but then I saw that Polanco was somehow ahead of Buxton.

With the way news cycles work these days, I think people are really overestimating the amount of attention this would bring to a team. My guess is that it would be a big story when training camp started, and then people would move onto the next thing, especially considering that, since he's a mid-round pick, he won't be a major player on the team.

I doubt he's that upset. His real recruiting doesn't begin until the kid has signed an LOI with another school.

I would agree since all along Theo has indicated that he intends to growi talent on the farm and then keepi them as long as they provide value for their contracts. Agree or disagree with the theory, it is clearly the theory they are operating under. Yeah, for now. You really think a 90 win team wouldn't add a big time FA pitcher if available and a need the next offseason? Probably not. Obviously depends on the player, but my guess is that they'd try and trade prospects for a younger guy with a few years of control.

Looks like he thinks Black can still be a starter. Has four pitches, the only question is the durability. I agree with Law. Keep Black in the rotation as long as he continues to show plus stuff. The guy at Bleachernation had an interesting piece the other day on Black's change of approach after coming over to the Cubs.

Weren't they both in Arizona in the fall for instructs already?

At least one of them, if not both, will hit the open market. They aren't going to take discounts and they aren't going to sign early long term deals. I'm betting neither of them do until well past 30. Neither of those teams are small market teams. Harper's agent is Scott Boras. I can't remember a time where Boras had his client sign a long-term extension prior to free agency, but maybe I'm wrong. Based on Boras's practice, it wouldn't surprise me if the Nationals had to pay a heavy premium to keep him away from free agency.

I think it all depends on the player. Some players may embrace that role (I think Rizzo kind of did that), while others may put undue pressure on themselves to perform (I think Castro probably does this). I trust the front office to be able to judge whether a player can thrive in a certain role when they get called up. Based on what I've read about Baez, Bryant and Almora, I think all three could be thrown into the middle/top of the lineup when they get called up and probably be successful.

Does the Tacoma roster get free Mariners playoff tickets?

At least one of them, if not both, will hit the open market. They aren't going to take discounts and they aren't going to sign early long term deals. Are they free agents the same year? It would be hysterical (and depressing) to see the Dodgers add $100mm per year to the payroll for two players.

I love that he put Lindor ahead of Baez. He also has a strange obsession with Addison Russell. Who's asking the first Hak-Ju Lee question in his chat?

Kris Bryant is either in the majors by July or heads into 2015 as the top prospect in baseball.

I heard on the Score yesterday that in order to get a stay, the rooftops would have to pay some sort of fee plus be liable for the amount of revenue lost by not having the ad up if they were to lose the case. So if the lawsuit drags on for most of the baseball season and they rule in the Cubs favor, the rooftops would have to pay the Cubs millions. They would have to post it at the beginning of the litigation. If that's true, why not just start building the Jumbotron and really twist the knife? There's always the risk that the Cubs' argument fails, and the rooftops would be able to get an injunction in place and the Cubs lose all the leverage.