Sammy Sofa

Oh, [expletive] that noise.

*rocket and gooney make out*

Something tells me that mention of "failure rate of technology" somehow involves a bird. And no, this isn't me saying that machines never screw up.

"This thread?" It's pretty much one guy saying it's one or the other, and that neither can likely man a corner OF spot. I think it's safe to say most here would love to have both.

Well said.

Well, it still kinda is. #32 is hardly a slam dunk prospect. He doesn't have to be poised for a breakout for him to already be very valuable to the Cubs; he'd be a damn good addition as is. And even if he was just a "slightly above average CFer" that still puts him well ahead of the need to reserve room for Jackson.

That depends on how good the two-three prospect is...It's not like Jackson is the champion of a great system...A better #1 than Archer sure, but relative to the rest of the baseball world hes not a top tier prospect.... And let's be serious here...Melky Cabrera and whoever is a better offensive or all around player than Upton? To be fair, Melky had a hell of a season with the bat last year. I'm curious to see if he can repeat it again before he becomes a FA for 2013. That said, he also had his worst year defensively. Upton was, however, clearly more valuable offensively than Jay and Fowler.

So we should sign any player who represents an immediate upgrade at their position regardless of what prospects are waiting in the wings? If you have player who is one of your top 2-3 prospects and is nearly ML ready, you should only block them if it's to acquire a top-flight player. Particularly if neither player looks like a fit at another position. I'm not talking about superstars, Upton wasn't even top 10 among CF in OPS last year. Behind guys like Jon Jay, Melky Cabrera and Dexter Fowler. He has a hard time making contact and doesn't hit for enough power or walk enough to move his offensive game into the "very good" range. He's a good player, but I hardly see a pressing reason to pay the guy a bunch of money when Jackson is there. Is that really so offensive? Yes, because metrics beyond OPS value him higher, and I place more stock in that bigger picture. Jackson being one of the Cubs' top 2-3 prospects is an indictment of the Cubs' system as it stands, not a ringing endorsement of the necessity of Jackson's place on the big league team. The case can easily be made that Upton IS the type of player that should be signed despite the presence of a promising but flawed prospect because you're largely know what you're getting into and he provides a LOT of value. Jackson is unproven and isn't good enough right now to merit passing on an available player like Upton simply because he's there.

Jackson isn't good enough (barring some HUGE leaps forward this year) to pass on a proven commodity like Upton so he can "take a crack at it."

I know, suddenly it has become fashionable to play the role of penny pincher on this board. The fact of the matter is theo didnt win the WS by playing small market mentality with the red sox. Sure some of his prospects were difference makers but the vast majority of both teams were major trade or free agent signings. Anyone who thinks that the cubs can 'build' a world series contender solely through the draft is not only ignorant but arrogant. No team in the last 20 year years has won without a major free agent acquisition. Even the marlins teams. You cant ignore free agency. And you cant wait and assume free agents will be available when you need them. Sometimes you just need to go get them. I'm fine with spending money, I'm just not fine with spending money to spend it. IMO, Upton would be redundant. If this were Justin Upton, I'd say break the bank. He's not redundant. Brett Jackson has proven [expletive]. No, but Upton isn't so good you make that move without giving Jackson the chance. B.J Upton is not an impact player. That's a ridiculous high standard to want/expect. The Cubs should only sign impact players, and no FA's below that arbitrary and subjective level to any position where they have a decent prospect who might succeed with the team in the next 2-3 years unless it's a bargain? Come on. And Upton's been an 8 WAR player over the last two season. I know that's not the end-all stat, but to just deem him as not being "impact" like it's a fact seems like a reach.

I know, suddenly it has become fashionable to play the role of penny pincher on this board. The fact of the matter is theo didnt win the WS by playing small market mentality with the red sox. Sure some of his prospects were difference makers but the vast majority of both teams were major trade or free agent signings. Anyone who thinks that the cubs can 'build' a world series contender solely through the draft is not only ignorant but arrogant. No team in the last 20 year years has won without a major free agent acquisition. Even the marlins teams. You cant ignore free agency. And you cant wait and assume free agents will be available when you need them. Sometimes you just need to go get them. I'm fine with spending money, I'm just not fine with spending money to spend it. IMO, Upton would be redundant. If this were Justin Upton, I'd say break the bank. He's not redundant. Brett Jackson has proven [expletive].

I don't hate the guy, I just don't think he's a fit for the Cubs. I'd take him if he cane at a bargain, but I don't see how he's so good you say "[expletive] Brett Jackson" and sign him, and I don't see he (or Jackson) as corner OF. Because Jackson isn't some kind of slam dunk prospect whereas Upton is more of a sure thing. Jackson still has value even if he does develop and they sign Upton. And I'd be apprehensive about signing Upton more over the issue of too many year as opposed to too much money. Obviously, I'm not saying give him anything he wants per year, but $15 million per for 5-6 years wouldn't bother me at all.

Plenty of predictions had Prince getting 8 years, so let's not suddenly pretend like him getting 9 was totally out of proportion. The "surprise" in that deal came more from the per year dollar amounts as oppose to the total years, but again, for better or for worse Prince was talked about as being a top tier FA. I'd be very surprised if Upton got similar hype.

I'm not a huge fan of Upton. I'm also confident some team will give him north of 15MM per. No. B.J. Upton is not getting a contract closing in Soriano territory unless he comes off of a monster year, and even then it's a stretch. I'm not sure, in this market. As we found out with Fielder, it only takes one dumb team with deep pockets. But with Fielder there was all kinds of hype about how he was going to get a monster deal. I don't see that happening with Upton. I wouldn't say there's a negative perception of him around baseball, but he definitely has a lower profile when he didn't turn out to be the stud everyone thought he was.

I'm not a huge fan of Upton. I'm also confident some team will give him north of 15MM per. No. B.J. Upton is not getting a contract closing in Soriano territory unless he comes off of a monster year, and even then it's a stretch.

And even saying that I don't think he's going to get $15 million per.

Wait, suddenly $15 million is overpaying for Upton? What the [expletive]? This getting absurd.

Baseball's yesteryear...when the walls would often be covered in ads.

I'm tired of this runt of a season.

Excellent.

It's not crazy at all. Certainly not as crazy as thinking of passing over Upton because of Brett [expletive] Jackson.

No way, man.

It was "ha ha. burp." before "ha ha. burp." was a thing.

What? No.

Cespedes, Darvish, Wilson and, to a lesser degree, Pujols, though "haunt" is a really loaded word. I think it's unfortunate they missed out on all of them and basically started from the bottom up when they didn't have to, especially when they can't throw nearly as much money into drafting and IFA as it's clear they were hoping/intending to.