Sammy Sofa

i think this is a fair opinion. Same here. That scares me. I hope my post helps you both feel better. Not really. It's feels like kind of a juggling the deck chairs on the Titanic-type scenario right now. A baseball team has so many working parts it's pretty easy to shuffle around arguments based on expectations whether you're arguing that the team is going to be bad or good. Last year's team wasn't actually as bad as they ended up being going into the season, but they really weren't any good, either, and this one one seems very similar. The individual expectations and questions marks obviously change, but it doesn't really add up to having an actual good baseball team. Better than last year? Sure, OK, I'm on board with that; but that's not saying much when last year's team was "ideally" about a 70 win-team and this one looks to be cruising for the 70-75 range.

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year. You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed. It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad. I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion. i think this is a fair opinion. Same here. That scares me.

Dammit, get these two frowny face motherfuckers playing together.

He's not. Pulling him early has less to with his defensive ability (though it's not a completely unrelated issue) and more with keeping him healthy.

*Siiiiiiiiiigh*

Oh.

They gave it their all. Someone else just gave more. Should it have kept going until Sanchez ended up with Greinke money? I'd have loved to have Sanchez, but lets not act as though we missed out on a once in a lifetime free agent simply because he's been the first big name free agent we've actively pursued this offseason. How many strawmen can you pile into a single post? Just the first sentence is absurdly ridiculous and meaningless. If you're talking about "their all" as in the effort of actually flying to meet the guy and offer him a contract, so what? As tedious as it can get bringing up the "participation award," jokes, continually referring to their efforts as if trying hard counts as anything is just as awful. Plus the idea that you'd say they "gave it their all" when they failed to sign the guy is just patently ridiculous. Of course Sanchez isn't an amazing player, and of course I wouldn't want them to throw anything and everything at him to get him to sign, but your whole post is just...ugh.

I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed with things. In no way do I think the FO is a bust or that things are hopeless, but I'm not happy that they've put themselves in a position that I think will cost them both in who can they sign and how much they'll need to spend. it's a fair point, but i think a year ago you probably would have laughed at the notion that a losing environment would be more relevant to a free agency signing than the money itself. Yes and no; I have laughed at the notion, but that was with the expectation/hope the Cubs would be able to flex their big market muscle more than they have. And I'm not saying they're acting like a small market club, but they're clearly not at the level I think pretty much everyone here hoped. Because of those seemingly self-imposed restraints I think it'll unfortunately leave them without players they should or even need to sign, or they'll have to spend too much just to stay competitive with other teams offering. In the end it's not my money and I don't think this is a permanent situation at all; it's just unfortunate and can lead to some unfortunate deals where we're not just talking about an extra year or a few million more.

I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed with things. In no way do I think the FO is a bust or that things are hopeless, but I'm not happy that they've put themselves in a position that I think will cost them both in who can they sign and how much they'll need to spend.

One of the main things that bug me about what has been going on is that it potentially undercuts a lot of the desire to spend smarter. Maybe Sanchez never had any intention of playing for anyone else unless the offered deal blew everyone else out of the water, but you have to think that having a bad team impacts plans to be fiscally sound. Odds are you're not only going to have to really good/great FA more money to come here, but you'll have to do with the same with just good/useful players, too. You basically force yourself to have to spend even more money by being bad unless you luck out and have a bunch of prospects break through.

I loled Yeah, all of those international players sure turned out to totes suck and the FO had zero interest in them. Close call!

He's been worth at least $17 million the last 3 years and he's 28. yeah, he'll most likely be worth 15 every year of the deal That's now these things usually work.

Jesus that's depressing. Very.

Yeah, really hope WGN has absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs on TV as soon as their current deal is up.

Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available. I think when the first haymakers get thrown, they're going to be thrown via trade (like Price next year). Guys like Sanchez and/or Jackson would be building to that point. Just my opinion. Well, yeah; I'm not calling for one or the other. I don't want dual fronts; I want the Triforce.

Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available. Which is why they need to get one of Sanchez/Jackson or extend Garza. Or trade for somebody about to get expensive. If they don't do something, I'll be out front with you waving my pitchfork. But let's wait to see how it plays out before getting all worked up, okay? I'm not going to have a meltdown over the Cubs being bad because that's what I've known most of my life. This is just me being resigned to disappointment thus far because so far my impression of the post-sale, post-hiring of good FO is pretty far from what I had hoped/expected. They haven't done anything I wasn't expecting them to do while also doing a whole lot more.

Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available.

He's 28, doesn't walk very many people, strikes out more than average and gets a decent amount of ground balls. is 7.7/9 really better than average? i like that he won't cost anything other than money, and considering we don't owe anyone any money, it won't really hurt when his arm falls off and we're paying him 15 mil a year to rehab or pitch a 6th inning sometimes. he's just a boring dude to me. He is pretty boring, but the Cubs are at a point where "good boring" can help a LOT.

Anibal Sanchez is the "right kind of free agent" when you're a big market team that needs to get better and needs starting pitcher and he's available and it won't cause you any prospects or young players. Which is why the front office has offered Sanchez the best deal on the market. They've already agreed to a big concession that no other team has been so far willing to do. I would love nothing more than for the FO to pull this off and make me look like an even bigger jackass than usual.

He's been worth at least $17 million the last 3 years and he's 28.

Anibal Sanchez is the "right kind of free agent" when you're a big market team that needs to get better and needs starting pitching and he's available and it won't cost you any prospects or young players.

That's because I don't act like a petulant child every single time the Cubs are outbid. The Adam Dunn thread was a classic example. No, it's because I don't care. Your ideas of what is a good deal or not means absolutely nothing. 1.) It's not a near miss. Not yet anyways. 2.) If you camped outside the front office and whined like you do around here, the Cubs would be floating a $300 mil payroll just to shut you up. That would be terrible, wouldn't it? Because big spending is bad for some reason. I don't want the Cubs to spend just to spend and get themselves into a hole; I want them to spend because they CAN spend because they SHOULD be able to spend. How is this possibly something you don't want as well? Like I said, if the Cubs are choosing not to spend significantly more but can, that's unfortunate. If they can't spend significantly more, that's even worse. Neither is something that anyone would want.

If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction. So, people just wanted them to be the Dodgers of this season? Sign Pujols and a few other big guns and let's go for it? That's fine, but that just wasn't going to happen unless they were the Dodgers of this season. And, nobody has really ever been the Dodgers of this season. Except the Yankees or the Red Sox, and now the Angels. The Cubs are a big money team. I think the Ricketts are choosing to go (relatively) cheap until the stadium and other constructions and the TV deal are ironed out even though they don't have to. I think the FO are content to wait that out. Yes, I want the Cubs to spend big and build smart from within; the two are not mutually exclusive. I gain no extra pleasure out of seeing a winning team made for less money than another. I just want a good team.

That's too bad. He's one of the smarter/better posters on here. I have no idea what anyone here has ever proposed for any deal unless it's in front of me. I have absolutely no desire or need to retain something so useless. Remembering what Rob thinks Prince Fielder should have gone for has absolutely zero bearing on the quality of my knowledge of baseball.

Exactly. They're approaching this like they can present a "fair offer" as if they have something else besides money/years to entice FA's here right now. They don't. Odds are you have to pay extra to bring people to a bad team.