KingCubsFan

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.

Good. Find a way to get Jacob Turner and Rizzo.

yeah i also thought drabek was a little overrated. frankly i think he ends up in the bullpen long term. Yeah I never got it either. I don't think he ever had a K/9 rate above 9. And his numbers in AAA were Jay Jackson-like.

My only concern is that he'll continue to get worse, to the point where teams won't even want to waste a guaranteed roster spot on him. If you can trade him now with a few million in salary relief for the next three years, I say do it. I highly doubt his value is going to rise much. But if your only upside to trading now is a few million bucks, then it makes more sense to keep him since he could have a good year, making it possible to unload even more money, if needed, or possibly get a prospect. As a big market team with room in the payroll you can afford to gamble a few million dollars on the chance you'll get more in the future. The concern is that he has an even worse year, and you're forced to eat his entire contract. I guess it just depends on how much the Cubs value the possible millions saved over the next few years

If he just said the best landing spots, that doesn't sound like he's reporting anything. Just seems like his opinion on fit. There's no way Boston is offering the second best package or anything like that. They don't have the horses to keep up in this race. I'm not a fan of what they've got to offer us, but it's because they don't have the pitching. If they're offering Middlebrooks/Kalish/Ranaudo, it's possible that's better than what some of these other teams are offering. If they offered us Matt Barnes as a PTBNL, Ranaudo, and one of Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, or Kalish, it'd be a solid package. Maybe Detroit isn't offering up much, other than Turner possibly? Because I certainly like the way they match up with us better than Boston does. I'd rather have Turner than those guys (Lavarnway is the only intriguing one). Matt Barnes and Ranaudo both seem like Brownlie clones to me, Middlebrooks looks like he'll just be an average regular and Kalish is too much of a question mark.

It's not like we're talking about Mariano Rivera. Neither of these guys have been closers for very long, and both were excellent setup men before becoming closers. There's only so much you can spend on international free agents.

My only concern is that he'll continue to get worse, to the point where teams won't even want to waste a guaranteed roster spot on him. If you can trade him now with a few million in salary relief for the next three years, I say do it. I highly doubt his value is going to rise much.

Closers certainly have more value, but teams will give good value to elite setup men as well.

I'd be wary of falling near the 7th or 8th seed.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-madson-loser-of-the-offseason/ This article makes a pretty good point. With money to burn and Marshall gone, it would be smart to try and sign him to a one or two year deal. Given what the Cubs just got for Marshall, and what the Padres got for Mike Adams, Madson would be a good asset to have at the trading deadline. The best case scenario is trading Marmol, putting Madson at closer, and then trading him at the deadline. It doesn't look like Marmol would bring significant value right now though.

What do you think of Whitenack? There's a lot of question there, but he was really picking it up before he got hurt. There's not much in the way of impact in the top levels on either side, but I've gotten the feeling that most of our potential elite guys in the lower levels were pitchers - Wells and Maples in particular. I also think we have more pitching depth than we do offensive depth and free agency (if we get involved in that) is much more pitching heavy than offense heavy and I wouldn't oppose adding one of the FA starters next offseason. Like I said, though, I would be pretty happy with pretty much any of the Toronto deals rumored, I simply would prefer getting an elite bat like Montero along with the pitching instead of just high end pitching if I had the choice. We don't really have impact talent on either side, and could use both hitters and pitchers. But I'd prefer a trade involving Montero over others simply because he's probably the surest bet out of all the prospects mentioned. All of the other guys (particularly the Blue Jays prospects) either have question marks or are still far away. Turner is probably the only other guy close to Montero.

Has there been any indication on the players being offered by the Yankees?

The K's have gone up, but so have the walks and the power. I think he's a bit too risky to be the centerpiece of a deal for Garza.

I tend to agree, which is why I'd prefer Soler to Cespedes. He seems like a better investment than giving a 26 year old who apparently isn't even ready for the majors $50 million.

I think you're overstating it. None of these people bought teams primarily to make money off them. I think you're overstating it. I can't believe you know that there isn't any sports franchise owner who bought a team for the profit potential. I would guess that the overwhelming majority of owners bought primarily for profit/tax write offs as opposed to ego/bucket list. You're mischaracterizing my post. I didn't say potential profit isn't a factor. I said profit isn't the primary factor. If they're great business people as you suggested, they'd find better investments if profit were the primary goal. And buying a team for the tax write-off directly contradicts your claim that these are profit making machines. Not when the tax write off maximizes your profits. One example is that a players' massive contracts can be depreciated over the "typical" length of a players' career. You can depreciate major assets in any business; this isn't exclusive for sports teams. You've failed to give any valid reasons or examples why someone would buy a professional sports franchise for profitability.

That's why "investment groups" usually don't buy sports teams, and rich sports fans like Tom Ricketts usually do. In fact, I can't think of an actual private equity firm or hedge fund buying a large stake in a sports team (besides that deal ripping off Wilpon).

this is a great question. for those who have season tickets, what types of packages are available? if i were offered a season ticket package, i'm sure i could get a group of friends together to help pay for them. Bleacher season tickets exist. Aren't they grandfathered in? I believe they and nights and weekends were both eliminated a bit ago. They offer them again, but only for the bleachers.

If 81 games is the upside, I'd rather they just lose 100.

That's the one thing that everyone (especially the FO) needs to keep in mind. Don't settle for anything less than a perfect package because Garza is an ace and is still young enough, cheap enough, and under team control to help us build for the future. While I agree, he's only under team control for two more years, and he's coming off (by far) his best season in the majors. Now may be the best time to trade him. If you wait another year, you could end up in the same position as the White Sox were with Danks where you're not getting great offers for him. Although if he signs the same deal Danks signed, I wouldn't mind giving him an extension.

Exactly. His performance against lefties wasn't even that impressive. Carlos Lee, John Mayberry, Vernon Wells, Jason Bourgeouis and Jason Bay are just a few of the LFers that were better against lefties last year. People try to extract value out of Soriano, but there really isn't much, and he's only going to get worse. He still has some power, but that's about it. If someone will take him without the Cubs paying the entire contract, you do it immediately.

Agreed. Which is why the Yankees or Tigers are a better trading partner. I still don't think the Yankees would trade both Betances/Banuelos and Montero, but if they would, I'd immediately do it.

Heck no. top 5? I mean, I can understand KG's optimistic take of 11th in the system, but top 5? Baez, Brett Jackson, Szczur, McNutt, Rhee Maples, Wells, and etcetera would easily top him for me. He's not that much more advanced than Marco Hernandez, and hernandez has a better shot to stick at short, so I'd take Marco over him. Our system isn't terrible. Even almost all of the key analyzers out there have acknwoledged that we aren't terrible. Below average, yes. But for a Jose Altuve type to be top 5 would mean a terrible system. I have to disagree with you, here. Other than Baez, Jackson and Sczcur, I don't think there's many comparable with Torreyes combination of age and accomplishments. Rhee has some promise, but he's basically got one half season of good performance following a year and a half of mediocrity following his injury. Hernandez still hasn't played in a full season league, and Ben Wells projects to be a middle of the rotation innings eater with average K rates. I think you can group in Torreyes with a lot of our prospects, but his performance thus far makes me rank him above a lot of the other guys. If it wasn't for the fact that he was short, he'd be getting Howie Kendrick comparisons right now. And given that he just slugged .457 at Dayton, I'll wait to see how much of a detriment his size will really be for a second baseman.

He's more than just AAA filler. http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/6/30/2249330/prospect-of-the-day-dave-sappelt-of-cincinnati-reds

I have to think Torreyes immediately becomes a top 5 prospect in the system.

If we're going to suck next year, don't start the service time clock on guys who can still benefit from time in the minors. Exactly. And in the meantime, maybe you're able to flip a guy for some value at the deadline. Get a great package for Garza, get value for Marmol, sign Soler and it's been a pretty good offseason.