KingCubsFan

Yeah, because those are out there all the time. Teams aren't willing to trade players they don't want to pay bigger arbitration dollars to? We've seen mentions of Shields, Upton, Nolasco, Danks, Floyd, Gio Gonzalez, even Joey Votto possibly being on the trade market. Based on the rumored asking price of Danks and the reported offers for Gio, I don't think we have enough to get any of those players, except for Nolasco.

Completely disagree. First off, more than one reasonable target has been signed. Whether the prices were reasonable is besides the point, they were reasonable targets. Furthermore, the fact is they haven't done anything but make middling small market mentality moves yet. They've gone for a cheaper Fukudome with less patience in right field, and a more patient Colvin at 3B. They've made middling moves that probably don't represent all that much of an upgrade to what the Cubs began last season with, if any. So far they haven't done anything big market. They haven't done anything to significantly improve the 2012 team. This wasn't a dead franchise. It was a fundamentally flawed franchise in position to be in contention for the division next year with an impact signing or two, and the financial wherewithal to make that happen. The process of rebuilding the farm system will take time, but we're talking about parallel fronts and a team than can afford to do both. This isn't Pittsburgh. They can, should, and have to do both. Over the top pessimism is uncalled for at this point, but nonsensical claims about how unreasonable it is to expect these guys to make the 2012 team a hell of a lot better while also improving the farm system are just as blind to the facts. They've also talked about being smart. Giving Pujols 10 years, 275 million, and a no-trade clause isn't smart. They were interested, made an offer, and got outbid by an owner desperate to make a splash.

Disagree. It's a low-risk, low-reward trade that, in the most likely scenario, has us losing extra games in 2012 because we are running out a terrible third baseman who is going to get $1.5 to $2.5 million more than he is worth. Weren't you advocating a Flaherty/Baker platoon at 3B? It's almost a guarantee Stewart will be better than Flaherty next year. This won't impact our ability to get Fielder, Darvish, etc., so I don't know why you're harping on this trade when it will almost certainly turn out better than your crappy solution to have our C-C+ fringy former prospect get the bulk of the playing time.

I would have loved to have him too - on a 2/26 or so deal. 4 years and $15 mil a year for a 33 year old pitcher is crazy, though, no matter how consistent he's been. Aren't you one of the strongest advocates for CJ Wilson? Seems strange you'd be hesitant to give a extremely durable 33 year old pitcher 4 years, but have no problem giving a 31 year-old (and less durable) a more expensive 6 year contract.

How exactly? Defensively?

Probably not everyday. He hasn't played there since 2009, and he wasn't that good there. But he could play there from time-to-time. I don't want Stewart as the everyday 3B for any reason, but I'd be fine if he got the ABs that DeWitt got last year. And like DeWitt, he is serviceable at 2B, 3B, and corner OF (LF). Why not? Other than Headley, I don't see a realistic 3B option that's guaranteed to outperform Stewart. Wouldn't suprise me too much if he had a higher OPS than Headley, actually.

This. The way you win the most titles is by making it to the playoffs as much as possible, not loading up for the occasional run. And yet, the Marlins won just as many in the 90s as the Braves. They've also won since that decade. My point is we probably shouldn't be hammering away at their signings this offseason. They've tried this approach two times in the past and it has worked. They have set themselves up to have a three or four year window to win it all. They only bought a World Series once. The second World Series was due to rebuilding the farm system and obtaining young players after dismantling their first World Series team. Lee, Beckett, Cabrera, Burnett, Pavano, Penny, Castillo, etc. were either from the farm system or obtained through trades of veterans. So if the Cubs want to try that approach, that'd be great.

Theo has been able to get the Cubs mentioned as a possibility for almost every big player available this offseason. Regardless of whether he signs anyone, it's refreshing to see our management keep everyone guessing, as opposed to "Hendry focusing on left handed hitting outfielder who plays well in day games."

It's not the certainty that makes him intriguing, it's the fact this upside is so much higher than your normal AAAA infielder. None of those guys have the potential to hit .260-.270 with 20+ homers.

He probably thinks someone like Flaherty is roughly equivalent to Stewart, or at least close enough where it's not worth it to spend $3 million on Stewart when you can have Flaherty for the minimum.

Headley's a nice player, but he's not worth trading your top prospects for. The Cubs need to save their trading chips for better players.

Not sure why they wouldn't platoon him. Just pick up the other half of a platoon off the scrap heap and they could have an .850 OPS RF for $5 million.

Wilson is obviously the better pitcher, but interestingly: Jackson 2010: 3.86 FIP, 3.71 xFIP Jackson 2011: 3.55 FIP, 3.73 xFIP Wilson 2010: 3.56 FIP, 4.06 FIP Wilson's 2011 season obviously blows anything Jackson has ever done out of the water. But it will be interesting to see the contracts each player gets, as I don't think Wilson is worth 8-10 million more than Jackson. Although Jackson remained pretty stagnant even with two of the best pitching coaches in the game in 2010, it would be interesting to see how he does with a pitching coach that emphasizes strikeouts more than Cooper or Duncan does. It's too bad we don't have Rothschild anymore, because I think Jackson would be a great project for him.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good. I said except Rees. Jonas Gray was a new man until his knee blew out. The secondary looked better, esp after the UM debacle. Where they looked bad was where they lost key starters including C and both DEs. But the kids looked much better late in the year than in September when, for example, Aaron Lynch was almost solely a pass rusher. Well, I guess guys like Aaron Lynch played better later in the year, but overall they looked clearly overmatched against both USC and Stanford. Early in the season, they dominated two good teams in MSU and Michigan for 7 quarters (excluding the 4th quarter against Michigan when Gary Gray forgot how to play football). Overall, a pretty disappointing season as they were a top 10-15 team in the country based on talent. Can't really expect an improvement next year, as both Floyd and Te'o are gone, and this team makes too many mistakes to trust the coaching staff. With Floyd and Gray gone, I think they need to go with Hendrix to have any shot at a dynamic offense. Teo will be back. He's not a first round pick right now. And he skipped his mission to graduate from ND. I don't think his mom will let him leave early. The starter will be Hendrix or Golson. Neither was ready to play big minutes this year. With Floyd gone, it'd be great to land another big time WR recruit, but they have depth there. And hopefully GAIII will look as good at RB as he has returning punts. The OL and Rees didn't play well against USC. Teo had a poor game too. But the OL did after that. They struggled with a pretty average Pitt team in September bc Rees was terrible. Struggled against a poor BC team with a solid defense for the same reason. Actually, they only didn't blow out Wake bc Rees struggled there too. Dominated some pretty average to poor teams in Navy, AF, and Maryland at different times during the year. If you think they were overmatched against Stanford, you were watching a different game. They looked better against UM and MSU bc those two teams aren't as good as USC and Stanford. Teo is #15 on Kiper's Big Board. Coupled with the problems he's had with Kelly, I'd be very surprised if he returns. As for WR, they already have Ferguson out of Florida, and got Davaris Daniels last year. Neither, of course, is as good as Floyd, but certainly provides some hope. As for the Stanford game, the defense played pretty well, but the secondary is still a weakness and it shows against QB's like Luck and Barkley. ND is slowly building talent on both sides of the ball to compete with the best teams in the country, but I think they'll be stuck in the 15-25 range until they can get a good QB and some more depth. Hopefully Kelly's bet on the USC game didn't kill the recruiting class this year.

No, but he's blocking a better player at a lower price. If you can get any type of salary relief from Soriano's contract, you dump him. With the new CBA, we need all the money we can get to spend on the major league roster. soriano is blocking someone? I think he means, theoretically, whoever you could sign with the salary relief, which, I suppose, is debatable. Right. Or even putting Brett Jackson in LF and improving the roster elsewhere.

No, but he's blocking a better player at a lower price. If you can get any type of salary relief from Soriano's contract, you dump him. With the new CBA, we need all the money we can get to spend on the major league roster.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good. I said except Rees. Jonas Gray was a new man until his knee blew out. The secondary looked better, esp after the UM debacle. Where they looked bad was where they lost key starters including C and both DEs. But the kids looked much better late in the year than in September when, for example, Aaron Lynch was almost solely a pass rusher. Well, I guess guys like Aaron Lynch played better later in the year, but overall they looked clearly overmatched against both USC and Stanford. Early in the season, they dominated two good teams in MSU and Michigan for 7 quarters (excluding the 4th quarter against Michigan when Gary Gray forgot how to play football). Overall, a pretty disappointing season as they were a top 10-15 team in the country based on talent. Can't really expect an improvement next year, as both Floyd and Te'o are gone, and this team makes too many mistakes to trust the coaching staff. With Floyd and Gray gone, I think they need to go with Hendrix to have any shot at a dynamic offense.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good.

Minnesota?

Doesn't seem like there's much of a point to having a first round pick anymore. If you sign more than one player to an overslot, do you just forfeit a first round pick two years from now? Or does it just go to your second round? Edit: I see the penalties apply if you exceed the entire pooled amount. Makes even less sense to keep your first round pick now if you're a good team.

This may make a state of the art training complex even more important, as teams will no longer be able to significantly outbid each other. If they're being offered virtually the same amount of money from every team, odds are they might choose the team whose complex they've been training at. You're talking about 2 different things. There are Dominican academies and there are Dominican facilities for those in the affiliated Dominican leagues. I didn't realize they were different. I'm thinking in the context of the academies.

This may make a state of the art training complex even more important, as teams will no longer be able to significantly outbid each other. If they're being offered virtually the same amount of money from every team, odds are they might choose the team whose complex they've been training at.

Hey, just looking for 1B options if we can't get one of the big 2. The outlook on the remaining options is bleak. I'm fairly confident LaHair would put up similar numbers to Trumbo.

Mark Trumbo is one of the last players I'd want on that team. In order to trade Soto and Marmol, I would think we'd need to get some pitching depth back in addition to Conger.

If the Rangers were willing to trade Profar for pitching, they'd probably rather have Shields anyways.