KingCubsFan

That's not good.

I guess my question is, who do they spend those eleventy bajillion dollars on? The FA pitching class next year looks really good right now, but is it smart to give out two 5+ year, huge money deals to 28-29 year old pitchers with lots of mileage? Let's say we sign one of Cain/Hamels/Greinke (if any of them hit FA, which I think only Greinke is likely to do), where else do we spend that money? I think real contention in 2013 at this point hinges on keeping Garza. If we trade him, I think we have to pursue a couple of top FA pitchers next offseason (since Wood would be our best starter) and possibly a big bat as well if Cespedes and Rizzo don't break out quickly. If we keep Garza, I think we're in a similar position in the 2012 offseason as we were at the start of this offseason - get a couple of impact type players and you have a shot at contention if the rest of the division is less than stellar. I still think contention in 2014 and dominance in 2015 is the most likely route, and most realistic by far, at this point. Though with Theo/Jed at the helm, I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out. Yeah, I was a fan of going after Cain, but it looks like Bochy has really Dusty'd him the past few years. Hamels and Shawn Marcum might be the way to go.

Does he really need to be to justify being really happy with this trade? Well the star players have to come from somewhere, and first base is a pretty good place to have one, especially since we don't have any other option. I agree, but people are suddenly dismissing Rizzo's ceiling because John Sickels isn't sold. Rizzo certainly isn't a sure thing, but he's about as close as it gets in terms of current first base prospects (unless Bryce Harper moves to first). Looking at minor league first base prospects, are there really any better bets out there, given age and closeness to the majors? We just got at Top 30-40 prospect in baseball for a pitcher who threw 30 innings last year and has never had a full starter's workload, and people are upset because he's not a guarantee to be Adrian Gonzalez?

It could be a fairly epic couple of months. Just wait until he puts up a .900 OPS for two months and then gets shipped off in July to make room for Rizzo. The Kaplans of the world will go nuts.

He knows firsthand the huge gap in talent between the Packers/Lions and the Bears and probably sees the AFC West as an easier opportunity.

I think I like the Baltimore guy most, but I have no idea. If they get one of these top guys, I'd be very happy with how things went down this offseason. If they wind up with some second tier guy, like Angelo was, I'd be disappointed. I don't remember when Angelo was hired. Did they strike out on their first choices before settling on him?

I hope you're kidding.

Yeah, that's how I read it too. Although this was interesting:

Luckily we're not talking about a diner, because you can build a quality organization in the future while still trying in the present. There is no need to punt 2012 no matter how hard davearm works to convince you people otherwise. I seem to recall a lot of excitement about this offseason on this site. Money off the books and the Cubs would be players in the big free agent sweepstakes. I am getting old so maybe my memory isn't very good. Am I remembering wrong? One by one the zombies have been convincing themselves that spending money on baseball players is foolish. Yea, the general thinking around here seemed to suddenly take a 180 at some point within the last two months. We went from being a Fielder & Darvish/Wilson away from winning the division, to being a fundamentally bad team that wasn't even worth improving with free agents, seemingly overnight There have been a fair amount of people who have been saying for some time that this team was fundamentally flawed, and that it probably wasn't worth throwing $40-60 million per year at two players that could hinder flexibility in the future when the 2012 team would have to stretch for mediocrity anyways even with those players. Blowing 25-40% of your payroll over the next 5 or so years on guys with the flaws of Fielder, Pujols, Wilson and Darvish isn't the no-brainer this board makes it out to be. For years, this board criticized Hendry and the whole organization for a lack of vision and long-term plan. Yet, here we are, with a well-accomplished front office with a long-term plan supported by ownership, and most people are bitching about the fact that we'll probably suck in 2012. We've sucked for 3 years, and anyone with half a brain knew, deep down, that we probably wouldn't be very good for at least 2 of those years. At least now there's some hope that guys like Stewart and Wood can become long-term solutions, and that our front office won't be scrambling for stopgaps to try and keep their jobs.

So basically not signing Fielder/Pujols (not sure that they should always be grouped together, as one is much better than other) moves us from a really good division favorite to crappy? This isn't basketball. One player won't make that much of a difference.

Or by offering him the best contract. You think Prince has eliminated Seattle and the Cubs from consideration because they're going to be bad next year? No, but he probably would prefer to play for a winner. That's why I said one of ways to get him would be to overpay. You don't have to convince him to come to baseball Siberia. It's Chicago, and the Cubs. It's Wrigley Field. He has a chance to play here for several years, win during that timeframe and maintain his value for a second free agent contract in his 30's. If I were trying to convince someone to play for the Cubs, Wrigley Field would be the last thing I'd mention.

Do we even know who the actual contenders are? What about the Rangers? And as of right now, the future is certainly brighter in Toronto and Washington than it is here.

Or by offering him the best contract. You think Prince has eliminated Seattle and the Cubs from consideration because they're going to be bad next year? No, but he probably would prefer to play for a winner. That's why I said one of ways to get him would be to overpay.

But if you add a Fielder, Cespedes and trade Garza for a package of elite prospects this year, then add a top of the rotation guy and a mid-rotation guy in FA next offseason, this team could definitely compete in 2013 and still be ready to dominate in 2014 and beyond. The problem with that is the only way you'll get Fielder in a scenario like that is by (a) lying to him and telling him we'll be competitive next year, (b) overpaying for him by a ton, or © somehow convincing him that it's worth it to wait a year or so because we'll sign a few more free agents and be good. In the real world, probably the only way you're getting Fielder is by doing your best to put a contender on the field this year, and that would have necessitated overpaying for other free agents.

How is that risky? What are you risking? Because it's very possible you get nothing but a headache from him. Volstad isn't great, but at least he has the potential to be something. Volstad is a serious non-tender candidate. Right. He's certainly not great, but as the Fangraphs article points out, he may be able to provide some value. I don't really expect much from him, but I never really expected we'd get anything for Zambrano anyways.

How is that risky? What are you risking? Because it's very possible you get nothing but a headache from him. Volstad isn't great, but at least he has the potential to be something.

It just seems needlessly risky to wait for Zambrano to build his value up by the trading deadline. First, he hasn't shown much in terms of pitching for a year (including the winter league). Second, I find it hard to believe somebody is going to be willing to give up much more than Chris Volstad for 8-9 starts of Z down the stretch, knowing that he could blow up at any time. People throw the "trade him at the deadline" card around a lot, but has there ever been any proof that teams actually get more at the deadline? I doubt it. Volstad has some upside, and that's about all you can ask for in a trade like this. Z's pitching and mishandling by past management killed any value he had. And my guess is that there was a lot more going on behind the scenes that we don't know about that could also help explain the trade.

I think you may be on to something in regard to their intentions with Volstad. There is no way that they view him as a long term solution, so maybe they think that if they catch lightning in bottle and he tears it up for half a season, he will be a valuable trading chip at the deadline. Less baggage and much cheaper. Not necessarily. He's been healthy his whole career (which Epstein has indicated he values), and is a groundball pitcher who would seem to benefit from improved defense behind him/Wrigley Field. By GB%, he's right by Cole Hamels, Ivan Nova, Jaime Garcia and Ricky Romero.

one issue i had with that fangraphs piece is that zambrano has, up until last year, consistently outpitched his xFIP, to the point where you can't just write it off as a fluke. even with his ERA being a half run higher than his xFIP last year, his career ERA is still more than a half run higher than his xFIP. Yea. There was that and the fact that they mentioned how Volstad had 60+ more innings when Zambrano's inning total was obviously severely impacted by his "suspension." The author alluded to that in the article. Yes, but then he can't really use their IP totals to make some point about his durability, but he did. He said he hasn't shown the same durability he has in the past, which is accurate. Even if he played the entire year, there was no guarantee he would have reached 200 innings. (and he hasn't in 4 years).

I still think Wood has a good chance to be above average. But, yeah, at some point you'll want potential TOR guys. If they can get Turner for Garza, they can potentially go into next offseason with a cheap mid-rotation guy (Wood), two cheap bottom of the rotation guys (Wells and Volstad), a potential #1/#2 (Turner), with a ton of money to spend on Cain, Hamels or Greinke.

I wouldn't want Dominguez (not that he's realistic at all). He seems pretty overhyped. Unless it's a SS, having a guy that can't hit at all in your everyday lineup doesn't seem smart.

An expected WAR(~5 WAR for Garza, ~3.5 for Gio and Latos), which obviously is heavily influenced by last year. So you use Garza's career year (by far) as a baseline going forward but project no improvement for someone like Latos?

Well, yeah. $30 million in surplus value over two years isn't enough to get you multiple blue chip prospects, unless teams get really desperate for starting pitching. They might get that desperate eventually, but at the moment it doesn't seem that way. It's not? Gio Gonzalez just got the proverbial truck of prospects backed up for him to provide what, 40 million in surplus value over 4 years? Mat Latos was largely the same as well, and both of those guys pitch in canyons that might mask their true ability a touch. Both of them were younger and under team control for longer. And also not as productive, that's why we're talking about the surplus value added over the duration of their team control. What exactly are you basing your surplus value figures on? Last year's WAR?

Well, yeah. $30 million in surplus value over two years isn't enough to get you multiple blue chip prospects, unless teams get really desperate for starting pitching. They might get that desperate eventually, but at the moment it doesn't seem that way. It's not? Gio Gonzalez just got the proverbial truck of prospects backed up for him to provide what, 40 million in surplus value over 4 years? Mat Latos was largely the same as well, and both of those guys pitch in canyons that might mask their true ability a touch. Both of them were younger and under team control for longer.

These just being 2 teams that are desperately seeking starting pitching. The Marlins and Orioles are also known to be actively seeking I really don't get why nobody seems to be willing to take a chance on 1 year of Big Z, a year that promises to be a walk year as nobody will pick up the 19 mil 2013 option. He has a 9 mil buyout which I'm sure the Cubs would pick up or maybe split. Obviously, Z has his mental issues, but if there's ever a year that he'll act and pitch anything like a 18 mil pitcher, this would be it, and although his velo is down a bit he still has what it takes to be a 3 guy in most rotations, probably 2 for the Yankees depending on how seriously you take Nova. A lot of teams seem very reluctant to give Edwin Jackson 4 years and Z would cost less in terms of prospects than Garza, Floyd, Jurrjens, or Wandy. I'd be willing to eat a good chunk, if not all of the salary if we could get 3 decent prospects in return, possiblly 1 of somebodies top 10 and 2 high ceiling guys or big league ready types, but obviously nowhere near the caliber of guys we'd expect for Garza. I understand that Z isn't a guy that should be railroaded out of town, but the way the 2012 season's shaping up, if we have to pay the 18 mil anyway it could be more valuable to us if we got some prospects and let Z pitch elsewhere. Perhaps a change of scenery would do him well. Maybe teams will be more desperate in the summer. I've been saying all along that I'm surprised nobody has shown interest in Zambrano with the Cubs paying a big chunk of his salary and expecting very little in return. Zambrano who slot into a #3 or #4 starter in most rotations. Given his numbers and scouting reports from last year, it's not that surprising people aren't lining up for a potential headache that probably won't give you 200 innings. With new management and a new manager, the Cubs are better off giving Zambrano another chance to see if they can salvage something at the deadline. With the Cubs picking up $12-$13 million, it leaves Zambrano at 1 year/$7 million. That's as good a deal as you're going to find out there. Whatever Kuroda gets is likely a better deal. Plus there's still legitimate back-end options like Joe Saunders, Jeff Francis, and Paul Maholm that can be had without having to give up anything. And if you're advocating giving away Zambrano and paying $12 million, I don't see why we wouldn't just keep him given our lack of rotation depth.