KingCubsFan

I think Crean did this for Scheyer too when he was in 8th grade.

This is Theo's real-life Baseball Mogul franchise.

I'm sure all 12,000 fans would have great views of it, too.

I don't either, but they spent the better part of the 2000's doing just that. Hopefully all the talk is just talk and they actually will make an effort to improve the line through better talent, instead of just coaching. So far, Emery has done some nice things. He's not fixing everything at once, and probably not going "after it" as hard as many fans would want, but he made the Marshall trade and has grabbed some guys that can be decent pieces. But how he deals with the O-line in the draft is gonna tell me a lot about where this is heading moving forward. At this point I'd be much more excited to see him go after both sides of the line early and often than go after a WR. The WR need is real, but after the Marshall trade they can still get one in the middle rounds and try to develop. It's not like first round receivers are great bets or that late rounders/undrafted can't contribute. If Floyd was there, I'd still grab him. Marshall remains our only starting caliber WR.

ugh ... although there is a part of me mildly impressed that he can be productive at that junk speed. Even the most negative pre-draft reports on him had him in the 90's, so this seems like a byproduct of the mono/fracture combination. Here's hoping he can get it back up, but it feels very Bobby Brownlie-ish right now. Agree on the Brownlie comp. Although Brownlie was a much better risk. He was a top 10 talent who fell. Simpson was off the radar, and the Cubs have handled him pretty poorly since signing him.

How high would you be willing to go?

Agreed. He's not worth getting if he's going to be paid like an elite CFer. It's a good thing that the Red Sox and Yankees are set in CF (although I suppose the Red Sox could shift Ellsbury again). I could see the Mariners going hard after him. Same with the Nationals.

I'm not a huge fan of Upton. I'm also confident some team will give him north of 15MM per. If we could get him for a decent price, I'd be for it. But I don't think we need two guys who are .750 OPS, contact challenged, low OBP (Jackson & Upton, though I think BJax might out-OBP Upton) in the same OF. I see Bjax and Upton as being guys who provide decent value in CF, but wouldn't on the corners. I also don't have a hard time seeing Jackson approximating Upton's production, and for a fraction of the cost. Brett isn't as good a defender and probably won't steal 40 bags (though 20+ is certainly a possibility). I just don't see a $15MM difference between the two. If this were 2008 I'd say there would be no way you pass over B.J., but this isn't 2008. Of course what we see out of Brett this year could reinforce or change my opinion. I agree that Upton and Jackson could be redundant, but I'd have no problem putting Upton in RF. I've always thought RF was harder to play at Wrigley.

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done. I think many people have argued very strongly that it is their preferred method. I think the argument tends more towards not wanting to give out massive 8-10 contracts to players that, in their mind, are either about to decline or already on the decline. It's not necessarily what method is "preferred," it's more that the Fielder/Pujols contracts weren't smart.

1. Think it's a terrible idea. 2. Think they would have done it already. He doesn't really profile at any other position either except second base. MAYBE CF, but a SS to CF switch at the MLB level? That can't be easy or fun. All it takes is one of those flirt with .350 years...and he's the kind of bat who might be able to do it. I think the old regime would have done it this year to replace Aramis. Then they would have overpaid for a veteran SS for defensive purposes. Epstein knows how valuable Castro can be at SS, and my guess is that they're using at least this year to see how much he is able to improve defensively. If the throws remain an issue, I could see him eventually sliding over to 2B (especially since we don't have a long-term answer there anyways). But I think Epstein will give him every opportunity to stick at SS.

If I'm the Heat, who cares? Deng is shooting 41%. I'd let him get the ball whenever he wanted.

Oops. While its significantly better, .297 isn't wow in the PCL either with that kind of K rate. Not that I don't like Jackson, just curious as to what his ceiling is. I don't think he's a superstar in the making, but he does a lot of things well enough that he should be a productive major league ballplayer. Someone once brought up Ray Lankford as a comp, which works pretty well in my opinion. He could make a handful of All Star games in his career, but I think he's more of a building block than a cornerstone, if that makes sense. If Vitters really has improved his defense enough to be average at 3B long term (hey, only one error so far!), then I think I'll feel better about being the only weirdo out there to rank Vitters higher than BJax. Vitters has a lot more work to do compared to Jackson. His flurry of singles coupled with an increase in walks has been encouraging, but until he's able to put the whole package together for a while I'll still be suspicious.

To what end? I'm glad LaHair is off to a good start, but even with a full season of strong offensive numbers, I can't be sold on him as a fixture at 1B. After that you're looking at more than a season and LaHair is about to turn 32 and on the decline. That's my biggest problem, is that there isn't much payoff to gambling(as much as you can call it a gamble with no other options) on LaHair. he turns 32 after the 2015 season. And only a few months older than Carlos Pena was when he got his shot with the Rays.

Pretty sure 4 guys have gotten their average above .300 during this game.

I think the stupid NBA draft eligibility rules have a lot more to do with ruining BB than Cal. yeah, how is cal "ruining basketball?" is he NOT supposed to recruit the best players? "no thanks, anthony davis, i don't want you here." Gee I wonder if the $200,000 has anything to do with it? Waiting for the Davis lawsuit to happen. So smart abuck. So smart. If you're referring to the Davis family's lawsuit, I don't think they can file that anymore.

I don't think cutting a draft budget will suddenly allow small-market teams to keep all of their young stars (although teams are obviously starting to realize the value of Longoria-like contracts). These guys have always been extremely valuable, and I don't think the CBA did anything to change that. If you're going to talk about the opportunity cost of giving up prospects, then you also have to look at the opportunity cost of the extra money spent in obtaining a free agents. For example, look at Adrian Gonzalez vs. Prince Fielder. Adrian Gonzalez was traded for Kelley, Fuentes and Rizzo, three really good prospects. All Prince Fielder cost was money. But the Red Sox were able to lock in Gonzalez for 7 years at 154 million before he hit free agency. It costs the Tigers 9 years and 214 million. That's 2 years (when Prince will be bad) and $60 million in additional value the Tigers had to give up because he was a free agent. So the Red Sox, theoretically, have an extra $60 million going forward to spend on their team and they have a similar (better) player going forward but three less prospects. The three prospects given up would have to put up significant WAR over that time period to make up the difference in overall value, and that is unlikely (I hope Rizzo does, obviously). I'm not saying you should close the door on ever signing an elite free agent, but the deals given this offseason (plus the Votto and Cain deals) make it less likely that those signings will ever be smart.

How many players like Garza are we going to see hit the trade market and not be ridiculously overpriced? Just this offseason, we've seen Cain, Votto, Kinsler, Kemp, Alex Gordon, and others signed to extensions to keep them with their original team and guys like Lincecum and Justin Masterson are in talks for an extension. The As also got a ridiculous haul for a pretty average pitcher in Trevor Cahill. The Latos and Gonzalez trades were much better than the Cahill deal, but both the Reds and Nats gave up a pretty significant haul of talent for each guy and those deals were more the exception than the rule anyway. If anything, I think the changes to the CBA make keeping and developing prospects even more important. It's much harder now to simply go out and buy prospects in the draft, making it much harder for teams that deal away prospects to simply replenish them by spending a bunch of money. You also have smaller market teams like the Pirates and Royals who generally were the biggest spenders in the draft, now unable to spend as much. Some of that money may go toward locking up young players like McCutcheon and Gordon who previously may have been dealt. I'm not saying teams shouldn't trade prospects for pre-FA players, I simply think it should be done with a bit more care now since you can't just buy your way to a better farm system anymore. We're in agreement that prospects have now become more valuable with the new CBA. But just because they have become more valuable doesn't mean their odds of actually succeeding as baseball players has increased. Yes, the Nats and A's gave up a "pretty significant haul of talent" for young, cost-controlled pitchers, but in the end it will probably be worth it because most of those prospects will amount to nothing. Jarrod Parker and Trevor Cahill are almost the same age, and Cahill has already proven himself to be a good major league starter. Will Parker be that much better than Cahill? Probably not. With the new CBA, and inability of teams like the Pirates to outspend in the draft, their need for prospects will only increase. A well-run team like the Cubs should be able to capitalize on that.

I was thinking the same regarding Hernandez, I was surprised he made Peoria before Baez to begin with. If he doesn't pick it up and Baez continues to rake, I could see a mid May call up for Baez. Although I still think the Cubs want this new approach to be firmly installed in these young players heads, so I could understand keeping him in AZ. Plus he supposedly had maturity concerns when he was drafted, so they may be keeping him down in AZ to keep a closer eye on him and see how he handles being a professional baseball player.

What if that "somebody better" isn't on the market, or is ridiculously overpriced? And why give up prospects for a guy then when you can potentially negate that need now without giving up prospects? I think prospects are, in a lot of ways, becoming overvalued. I know we've been through it many times, but Hendry was pretty good at trading prospects that ended up not amounting to much and getting back solid players (excluding the Juan Pierre trade). Given the emphasis on player development, I would think the new regime would be even better at identifying the prospects they want to keep and the ones they think have a higher chance of busting. And I think the value of prospects will only increase given the draft spending caps and lack of compensatory picks. Given the contracts that have recently been given out to big time free agents, it could be better going forward to trade your prospects for good young players like Garza, and then try to extend them before they hit free agency. The prospects are the price you pay for saving tens of millions of dollars in contracts.

His decline really isn't much of a surprise. It's too bad we're stuck with his deal, but at least it's over next year.

I wonder if Castro would take that.

I keep having this nightmare scenario play through my head: 2012: We were too bad last season to make it worth adding a big-time contract. 2013: Ditto 2014: We almost made it to .500, but there's only a couple of impact players on the market, and the Dodgers and Yankees went to insane numbers on them and we should be thankful we didn't try to match that. 2015: Attendance has been down the last few years because of all the awful teams, and we still don't have the cable megadeal like those big market teams, so we have to be prudent. And/or the current management team proves as smart as we all hope/think they are, succesfully build from within, and enter the free agency season "one player away!" And the best player on the free agent market is . . . Alfonso Soriano II. That would be a bit different though, because we'd have a lot of cheap, young talent on the team when we added Soriano II. Plus this front office would never add a player with those type of flaws and demanding contract.

Ugh If we had last years lack of pitching depth, I'd be interested in a flier, but as is, is he even an upgrade over Wells, Wood, or dare I say Coleman or Lopez? Byrd mentioned in the article. I know Byrd isn't going to net us any blue chippers, but we could certainly get a better return. Yeah, because you have any idea. I'm actually quite certain that we could get 2-3 high ceiling, low level guys and even if they never make it to AA it's still more valuable than another 6-7 starter/swingman. For Marlon Byrd? I doubt it, unless your definition of high ceiling is generous.

That's a fairly decent description of the Hendry regime. Those quotes sounds like he's making excuses for the future if things don't go as well as planned. All the more reason he shouldn't have tanked 2012 and probably 2013. If you can't gain as much advantage as you used to, it doesn't bode well for a team that needs to gain 15-20 games to be a serious contender. I think the real plan has become clear. He's going to use his past reputation and tank the next five years while collecting paychecks and playing Golden Tee in the new offices that he demanded to be built. He'll eventually get fired and leave the Cubs in terrible shape. I bet Crane Kenney is behind this plan too.

Handing jobs to bad player | an entire universe | Spending hundreds of millions on free agents. They could have attempted to put a credible team on the field without going the Pujols route. Do everything you did this offseason, but keep Ramirez and Pena, sign Cespedes instead of DeJesus and spend some money on one more decent relief pitcher to replace Marshall. Go ahead and trade Byrd. That's probably a .500 team with some decent chances in the 5-playoff-team era, and you've committed less than $100 million long-term. I guess that's reasonable. I don't think the team would have been very good, but that's obviously open to debate. Only problem is that Pena probably would have wanted a multiyear deal to stay, and then Rizzo is blocked. I know people are depressed because it's near Opening Day and we'll likely suck, but by July/August, the Cubs could have three guys under 24 and under team control for a lot of years that will be hitting near the top/heart of the lineup for years to come, one of which plays SS. Not many teams can say that.