KingCubsFan

What exactly has been strange about our moves (except Reed Johnson)?

I like deng but would sell high on him given a deal hat makes sense and knowing we are deepest at the 3. Deng is not Scottie on defense, he's pretty good. This doesn't make any sense. How are we deep at the 3? Brewer has shown these past few weeks he is not a starter, and Jimmy Butler has barely played. Just because Deng isn't as good on defense as one of the greatest defensive players of all time doesn't mean he (a) isn't extremely valuable and (b) likely not replaceable on the trade market. I'd trade him for Howard (if he signed an extension), but trading him for someone like Melo is more of a lateral move, in my opinion.

No, it's not a big deal. It is annoying, though, because I feel like we gave up more than we should have. It's not something I'm going to freak out over or anything, but it's annoying that Lucchino got his way. If Lucchino got his way, we would have given up Castro or Garza. He's probably mad about the return. And I wouldn't worry too much about losing Carpenter. We already acquired a very similar player in Casey Weathers, and we still have Blake Parker. Right-handed relief pitchers are the easiest "asset" to acquire in baseball.

Looks like it's Carpenter https://twitter.com/#!/Sean_McAdam/status/171995321298190337

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/68454-compensation-for-letting-theo-go/page__st__1200 I wanted to go point and laugh, but it doesn't appear anybody has mentioned Garza after this report came out. Yeah, they seem resigned to getting a reliever. This was good though:

That would be a terrible trade for the Bulls. Nobody on that team comes close to being able to guard Lebron. I feel like a healthy Deng is essential in beating Miami. A Howard deal is the only way I can see the Bulls considering considering trading Deng. Agreed. At least with Howard, you keep Lebron and Wade out of the lane and relegate them to jumpshots and flopping (Wade's specialty).

That would be a terrible trade for the Bulls. Nobody on that team comes close to being able to guard Lebron.

Agreed. Even though Carpenter was a well-regarded prospect, someone like Blake Parker probably has just as much of a chance of becoming a reliable late-inning reliever.

I'm somewhat optimistic about Vitters and Lake both because of the emphasis we'll have in the organization now. Theo/Hoyer has been preaching defense and plate discipline ("grinding ABs") since taking over and those are the two major weaknesses of both Vitters and Lake. Both already have contact ability (especially Vitters) and both project to decent to good power, but both have atrocious walk rates and both are weak to butchers in the field. If the Cubs could improve on those weaknesses, both could become really good prospects and I think we've got the guys in place to make that happen, if it's possible. Vitters could be an interesting study to see if plate discipline can be taught/learned at a later stage. By all the accounts of his superior vision/hand eye coordination it seems like if there was every a guy who could go from taking very few walks to taking a ton he seems to be as good a bet as anyone to do so. According to the scouting reports it's not that he has a pitch recognition/contact problem, it's that he's too good at making contact and thus swings at pitches out of the zone or ones in the zone he can't do much with but still is able to put them in play. If/when they start emphasizing the "grinding ab's" thing in the minor league level and Vitters buys into it, I could see him turning the corner on taking more pitches/walks. Which would almost more than likely cut down on his BA and increase his K's, but it should also help his power as he would be swinging at more "hitters" pitches. He also could go the complete opposite way and say "[expletive] it, I can hit any pitch I decide to swing at and put it in play" and continue on in his ways. Agreed on Vitters. With the new organizational philosophy, hopefully the front office has conveyed to him that, if he doesn't start showing more discipline, he probably doesn't have a future with the team. I don't have as much hope for Lake. Not only is his K/BB ratio horrible, but he's also been reportedly resistant to coaching. Guys with that type of pitch recognition problem usually don't make it.

I think Soldier Field is a federally-designated landmark, whereas Wrigley is a Chicago landmark.

That's not the Cubs problem. Maybe this'll help Ricketts buy up more Wrigleyville property. Club 162(Since it's re-opening I've seen a total of roughly 3 people in on non-baseball days.) I'm looking at you. Ricketts will need to bring back the Hi-Tops name. Ever since they switched to Harry Carey's, the middle-aged men buying shots for young girls have taken their business to Sluggers and never returned.

Ugh. I swear, it's like Soriano has left Cubs fans with PTSD. The 2010 Cubs were the result of poor team construction from the top to the bottom. Blaming it on "bad big contracts" or whatever the [expletive] is a stretch to say the least. All I was alluding to is that it's hard to compete when players like Soriano and Zambrano make up roughly 25% of your payroll, and it's been that way for several years. It puts you in an unnecessary hole that's difficult to get out of. cespedes is getting $9m a year. that's like 6% of the cubs' payroll. it sucks if he ends up being a complete bust, but it's nowhere close to crippling. Yeah, I don't have a problem with the money given to Cespedes. I can see why the Cubs wouldn't want him for only 4 years though.

Ugh. I swear, it's like Soriano has left Cubs fans with PTSD. The 2010 Cubs were the result of poor team construction from the top to the bottom. Blaming it on "bad big contracts" or whatever the [expletive] is a stretch to say the least. All I was alluding to is that it's hard to compete when players like Soriano and Zambrano make up roughly 25% of your payroll, and it's been that way for several years. It puts you in an unnecessary hole that's difficult to get out of.

I won't quote your whole post, but the risks/flaws you identified (except maybe Greinke's mental issues) are common in pretty much all free agents. They tend to be on the wrong side of the age curve, they may have been overused in the past, etc. To me, these risks are different than the ones we were presented with for guys like Fielder, Darvish or Cespedes. In Fielder's case, his body type has been documented as one that declines extremely early. For Darvish and Cespedes, there's real questions (particularly Cespedes) as to whether they can be successful in major league baseball because they played in foreign leagues. I think Pujols had more red flags than usual due to the huge contract he was going to command, but I think that argument has been made by both sides numerous times and it's not really worth bringing up again. There's one thing to use free agency to "supplement" what you already have, I totally agree. But what people were advocating, and why they are upset now, is more than simply supplementing the roster. It's devoting a large percentage of your payroll for the next several years for one or two players. If you're going to do that, you better be damn sure they're worth it. Otherwise, you'll end up with the 2010 Cubs.

Are all the perfect players free agents next year, then? Most free agents have flaws. That's why you shouldn't rely on the free agent market very often. But guys like Napoli, Wright, Upton, Cain, Greinke, Hamels and Marcum have lesser flaws that make the contracts slightly less risky. I'm not really a fan of building through free agency anyways, so passing on the horrific contracts this offseason doesn't bother me, particularly when it seems to be Epstein's weakness.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58762&p=2718769&hilit=+folding+chair+#p2718769 I wanted actually proven players over Cespedes and, to a lesser degree, Soler, but we've instead taken the bold move of neither signing established stars when they were available for only money, or signing longer term, potential guys like the two Cubans (who I didn't want). The logic that's been tossed around about "oh god, that contract sucks I'm glad we didn't sign the best players available in FA the past 3 offseasons" is specious and terrible, and the "we're going to compete on parallel fronts" thing was bs as well, and the "we're not going to overpay Fielder and Pujols because we're going to go after the Cubans and reload for 2013 and beyond" thing looks like it's worked out splendidly to cap it all off. I see us sucking for the next two years at least. Why is that logic specious and terrible? People act like this was the only year the Cubs ever had money to spend on free agents, and now that we didn't give $25 million to a guy like Fielder we're forever doomed. Every single major free agent had at least one major flaw this offseason, and signing one or even two was not going to put us over the top regardless.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with you that Billy Beane is a better GM than Jim Hendry. But you said the A's have a better future going forward. I think even Billy Beane would disagree with you on that (unless they get a new stadium).

Yeah, $18 million is all it takes to build a hell of a contender. no one said that 18 million is all it takes to be a contender. only that they arent willing to spend on a big free agent with that contract hanging around. 18 million may or may not make us a contender with this division you never know. 18 mil spent properly probably makes us more interesting to watch though. Thats all im looking for really. Field a team that has a chance to be .500. What proof do we have that they're not "willing to spend?" They just offered Cespedes the most guaranteed money. They severely overpaid for another Cuban prospect, and they're reportedly offering Soler a ton of money. We have no idea what they offered Pujols, Fielder, Wilson or Darvish, but the fact that they were seemingly involved in all of those discussions indicate that they are at least "willing" to spend. What proof do you have that they bid more? some other message board poster? until I read it from a reputable source that means nothing to me. We are a major market team, there is no reason we shouldnt be able to spend on amateur and professional talent at the same time. Theres no excuse for putting the present team on the field. edit: 7 million dollars is not severely overpaying for a lefthanded pitcher that immediately becomes a top 5 prospect in our system. I didn't realize that quote was from another message board poster, so I agree it means nothing. But overall, the reports on various available players this offseason has tended more towards the fact that the Cubs have been involved in the discussions as opposed to sitting on the sidelines counting their money. You can't just look at the end result and proclaim that they're not willing to spend money. Besides, the deals given to big free agents (except CJ Wilson) have ranged from bad to absolutely ridiculous. The fact that they passed on those should be applauded.

Yeah, $18 million is all it takes to build a hell of a contender. no one said that 18 million is all it takes to be a contender. only that they arent willing to spend on a big free agent with that contract hanging around. 18 million may or may not make us a contender with this division you never know. 18 mil spent properly probably makes us more interesting to watch though. Thats all im looking for really. Field a team that has a chance to be .500. What proof do we have that they're not "willing to spend?" They just offered Cespedes the most guaranteed money. They severely overpaid for another Cuban prospect, and they're reportedly offering Soler a ton of money. We have no idea what they offered Pujols, Fielder, Wilson or Darvish, but the fact that they were seemingly involved in all of those discussions indicate that they are at least "willing" to spend.

They probably lost interest once the price tag became $9 million a year for only 4 years and immediate free agency. At that point, he's not a very good deal considering he's somewhat of an unknown. Plus it seems like they really value years of team control.

I originally made the comment in the context of you asking what Wells' advantage is over someone like Volstad. My point was that you shouldn't be surprised when people don't see the advantage someone like Volstad has over Wells, because he historically has been overvalued on this board due to his pretty good FIP.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2490039#p2490039

If you look at numbers, the only real advantage Volstad has over Wells is age. So if you look at numbers, Volstad has the advantage in age. If you look at scouting and pedigree, Volstad has all the other advantages as well. What exactly is Wells' advantage? He's been compared to almost every major league starter by this board? If you go back a year, he was equal to Matt Garza and shouldn't have been traded for anything less than Evan Longoria.

I really don't get the love for BJ Upton when our best prospect is a CFer and Upton's only real value is his defensive ability as a CFer. Until Jackson can show his bat can play at a corner, we should probably stay out of the market for a defense-first CFer.

I really don't get the love for BJ Upton when our best prospect is a CFer and Upton's only real value is his defensive ability as a CFer. Until Jackson can show his bat can play at a corner, we should probably stay out of the market for a defense-first CFer.