KingCubsFan

Offensively, he's basically DeJesus. Not sure if stolen bases+defense make him worth $10-11 million more than DeJesus. I don't think stolen bases are some sort of sorcery that is hard to get a handle on like some people consider defense to be. That's a pretty clear cut and measurable contribution. Sure, but how much is it worth? When our offense is so terrible, I just wonder how smart it is to pay so much for an average to below-average offensive producer whose main assets are defense and speed (which will decline during the contract).

Offensively, he's basically DeJesus. Not sure if stolen bases+defense make him worth $10-11 million more than DeJesus.

Perfect? As what, a RF? RF, middle of the order power bat, sub for Rizzo at 1B, great OBP. That's going to leave a really sketchy OF defense. Our OF isn't exactly cavernous, though. Not that I'm necessarily advocating for Swisher, but couldn't you get away with him in RF and Jackson in CF? I've always thought that, due to Wrigley, the Cubs should have their best OF defender in RF. That's why I'm not that excited with getting CFers whose main value comes from defense.

The obvious answer seems to be because that contract won't be as much as Mirotic can make in Europe, and so he will choose to stay there instead. Also, I believe the Bulls can only pay up to $1 million for a buyout. So the rest has to come out of his pockets. Maybe the new CBA changed that.

I suspect this was more that they didn't want to put up with Yunel's [expletive] unless the Marlins took something of almost no value rather than that they value Lake more than Yunel. I understand, but I'd still trade Lake for him, [expletive] and all. He could very well be a 3 WAR player at 3B. Just what the doctor ordered for this roster. Lake seems primed for a breakout with the hitting environment in the PCL. Not trading him for Yunel Escobar (when Ian Stewart and/or Luis Valbuena could probably put up a .700 OPS with good defense at 3B too) was a smart move. Even if Lake flops, you really haven't lost much by holding onto him for another year.

The fact that his fielding was rated so strongly by Fangraphs, yet couldn't throw a ball into the infield on less than 12 bounces, makes me further question how "valuable" a player really is by WAR when it's driven by baserunning and defense. Bourn is OK, but this team needs offense and DeJesus had a higher wOBA last year.

Plus, there's always the added bonus of landing a Schaub, Flynn, Cousins type QB that can turn into an assett for you. I have absolutely zero confidence in the Bear's ability to develop an NFL QB from the draft. Given the holes on this team, wasting a middle round pick on a QB would be horrible. Campbell was too expensive, but I'd much rather spend $1.5 million on a serviceable veteran.

But with someone like Hanie, they literally had no chance of winning a single game. The backup will never be as good as the starter, but it's not hard to see how, from Emery's perspective, signing someone like Campbell was a quick and easy fix of a gaping hole.

I'm not criticizing Campbell. I'm criticizing the stupidity of the plan that said, "hey let's ignore the starting line that plays every down when the team is on offense and rather waste millions on a backup QB who if he plays, the team is doomed anyway." Did Cambell really effect our ability to improve the line though? It's a salary cap league and he cost lots of money, so obviously, yes he did. They chose to sign him and chose not to upgrade anything on the line. That was a foolish mistake. How much was he signed for? I have to think he cost less than any starting-caliber lineman that would have impacted the line's performance this year. One lineman (besides maybe an elite LT) isn't going to make a difference on this line anyways. They're all weak links and need to be replaced (besides maybe Louis).

My idea is based on getting Edwin. If we miss on him, I'm probably against dealing Garza. He's had two straight years of elbow issues. I'm not sure if the front office is going to want to give 5-6 years to a guy with a questionable health record. Given some of the returns for pitchers, my guess is they'd rather trade him.

One of the interesting things about Jackson is that he's been on a lot of teams that have preached pitching to contact, as opposed to striking people out. The Rays, White Sox and Cardinals all take that approach, and I think that partly accounts for the low K/9 output. I wonder if going to a team like the Cubs, who historically have seemed to emphasize the strikeout more, would raise the K/9 and increase the rest of his numbers as well, given that his control is improving. Historically meaning the Hendry/Rothschild era? Or are you saying the current regime in charging of preaching the Cubs way has historically emphasized the strikeout more than pitching to contact? I get the impression this regime is more let quality defenders do the work than the last Cubs regime was. I'm not really sure where Bosio stands, because he didn't have much to work with last year, but I agree that Theo & co. definitely favor pitching to contact moreso than Hendry/Rothschild ever did. At the same time, I don't think the preference is as extreme as Don Cooper, Dave Duncan, or the Rays. I guess my point is that Jackson set a career high last year in K/9, and I would expect his future numbers would be closer to that rate as opposed to his cummulative career rate given the teams he's played for.

One of the interesting things about Jackson is that he's been on a lot of teams that have preached pitching to contact, as opposed to striking people out. The Rays, White Sox and Cardinals all take that approach, and I think that partly accounts for the low K/9 output. I wonder if going to a team like the Cubs, who historically have seemed to emphasize the strikeout more, would raise the K/9 and increase the rest of his numbers as well, given that his control is improving.

Your fantasy is an 84 win team?

Has there been any hint of Shea's role long-term?

I guess that could have possibilities. Get Payton, anything less is a disappointment I would love this so much They'd probably have to make him the highest paid coach in the league. But given that they're paying Lovie $6 million, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

2. The difference between losing 84 and 94 games lies in the entertainment value. I'd like my favorite team to have a chance to win games sometimes. . No offense, but that's such a meatballish way of looking at things. If this team has no chance of making the playoffs, all else being equal, give me the benefits of losing more games.

You really can't get premium talent on the free agent. That's the whole point of this "process" and why we were about to pay a ton for a guy like Anibal Sanchez.

I don't normally wish injury on players, but I kind of hope his arm falls off now just to screw the Tigers for signing him. Why? His agent did his job and his first choice was to stay in Detroit. It's our front office's job to not get off the phone without a deal and make sure they don't get used for leverage How pathetic clingy gf do you expect Jed and Theo to be? I don't expect that, but I would hope they would start to learn from this and tell people they'll pull offers if they go back and forth on them. How do we know they didn't eventually do that?

I don't normally wish injury on players, but I kind of hope his arm falls off now just to screw the Tigers for signing him. Why? His agent did his job and his first choice was to stay in Detroit. It's our front office's job to not get off the phone without a deal and make sure they don't get used for leverage Sounds like the agent lied to them.

I prefer to think of it as I put prospects in their proper perspective. I love prospects, I absolutely do. But sometime in the last two years, a contingent of Cubs fans has declared prospects uber alles as their creed, taking it to an absurd degree such that mere trifles like Major League wins and losses are considered purely secondary concerns if they are even worth noticing at all. Yeah, relative to them it probably seems like I hate prospects. And it probably seems that way even more because I'm not one of those "Oh man, once every single one of our A-ball guys hits the big-league lineup in two years, they'll all be all-stars!" guys. But in reality, I love prospects truer than anyone, because I love them for what they truly are. (how's *that* for a maelstrom) I don't think anyone imagines every prospect will somehow turn out to be a major leaguer (except when SCS does his random 2015 lineup projections where we trade Rizzo because Vogelbach has cemented himself as an all-star). The point of prospects is to collect as many talented ones as possible, in order to maximize the chances that one or two will become big-time contributors to your team and you can trade others for major league talent. We didn't have a good collection of top-end talent when Theo got here, both at the minor and major league levels. I know you and others on this board disagree with that, but most of the evidence has supported that perception. And collecting high-end talent takes time (and it's only gotten worse with the new CBA). When you get to a team where the cupboard is pretty bare, you can (a) take shots on undervalued guys for cheap, (b) get a bunch of prospects through the draft and IFA market, and © spend as much as possible on free agents. C is by far the most expensive and most damaging if it doesn't work out, so it's no surprise that a front office with a ton of job security has chosen to pretty much ignore that and focus on (a) and (b).

It's definitely better. But I was hoping when we hired Epstein that we'd be aiming for slightly higher than "well, it's not as bad as the Tribune/MacPhail/Hendry era." I think it's 1,000,000x better. But I guess if you have tunnel vision and are only looking at how many losses they had last year, I could see how you wouldn't be a fan of what they're doing.

Absolutely. The fact that they actually have a concrete plan and direction for the first time in 20+ years is refreshing. And it's nice to root for a team that actually has a front office/minor league infrastructure on par with the rest of the league and not lagging decades behind. The fact that they might lose a lot of games next year doesn't bother me at all, considering they were losing a lot of games before Theo got here. I feel like that's taking it a bit far. The fact that they have been losing lots of games recently shouldn't make it not matter to you that they lose now and in the short term future. My point was that I'm OK with losing now, given that the direction of the organization is heading upwards, whereas before it was pointing down. I'd obviously prefer they win, but it's easier to stomach the losses knowing that the team has a long-term vision that I agree with. Beforehand, each successive year was essentially a patch-up job attempting to copy last year's World Series winner (and listening to the whims of our managers) with the hope that, if everything went right, the team might be good.

Absolutely. The fact that they actually have a concrete plan and direction for the first time in 20+ years is refreshing. And it's nice to root for a team that actually has a front office/minor league infrastructure on par with the rest of the league and not lagging decades behind. The fact that they might lose a lot of games next year doesn't bother me at all, considering they were losing a lot of games before Theo got here.

I think everyone acknowledges that they might be related. I think many times, people want to overlook the possibility that they aren't. It's Ian Stewart all over again: He comes into 2011 swearing he's healthy, hits brutally, then says that in late July he felt something in his wrist during batting practice. Why are we so sure that the cliff-dive in his ability to hit came because of the injury? Sometimes, guys who were hitting AA at 22 stop hitting in AAA and the majors at 23 and 24. The fact that he was injured doesn't mean we can just assume the train would have kept rolling along for those seasons. With Brown, besides that, there's the even larger possibility that the injuries have permanently effected his athletic ability. When you start talking about wrist, knee and hamstring issues for a guy whose calling card is his athleticism and potential power, then you have to wonder what the long-term effects are going to be. So in summary, you have a 25-year-old who was on a good path at 22, we have no idea what his 23 and 24 would have been like, and he has health question marks for 25. Why am I supposed to want to give a guy like that a big-league opportunity, let alone give up a tradeable asset to do it? He was once a top 5 prospect in baseball. He's the type of high-ceiling guy this organization needs to take a gamble on, and trust that our coaching staff can fix some of the flaws he may have. He's obviously not a sure bet, but waiting on trading Soriano (and whether he's a valuable "tradeable asset" is debateable) so we can get 2 guys with the ceiling of Darwin Barney isn't going to help us much. Neither is signing another veteran stopgap. If the front office doesn't care that much about winning or losing this season, I'd rather take a chance on as many Domonic Browns and Ian Stewarts as possible, with the hope that 1 or 2 will live up to their potential even if the rest flame out. Then you've got some real assets to work with.

his high school teammate, Cam Luper, is recruiting him hard to go to Texas A&M with him. Foster stopped by the AU athletic complex yesterday to speak with Malzahn, and Foster had the following to say: I think he'll end up at Georgia, A&M, or Auburn. Doesn't A&M have about 60 recruits already?