Sammy Sofa

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success. If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it. Are you seriously saying that it would be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason? Yeah, no offense, gr, but that seems incredibly backwards.

Yea, my comments certainly weren't directed specifically at you Dave. If you or anyone else doesn't think Fielder is a wise signing, that's fine. But when we start painting all free agents with the same brush (We don't want anyone that's going to be over the age of 30 during the last few years of a contract, we don't want to overpay anyone at any cost, let's wait until someone younger and better comes along,) we end up backing ourselves into a corner really quick. And yes, you can add "waiting until you can sign a FA that can immediately put the team over the top" and variations thereof to that list.

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success. Right. I certainly wasn't expecting them to suddenly become 90-game winners, but I don't think it was unreasonable to expect them to be noticeably better than last year as a step in the right direction given the money they had coming off of the books. That combined with the money also being freed up after 2012 seemed to make it a realistic expectation that they'd be able to start moving forward without having to go backwards at all.

You keep applying things I'm saying to yourself when I haven't directed them at you. And yes, there are numerous posters here who don't want to sign a big FA who is past 30, and yes, most of that seems to stem from their feelings on the Soriano deal.

That's why us fans should be patient and see what the team looks like in spring training. Remember we still have a good amount of money to spend and there's still plenty of good free agents on the market. Personally I would be shocked if this team payroll is below 120-125 million come opening day and still think they will be competitive next season. According to the media this team is rebuilding and next season doesn't matter, but I don't believe that. Are they retooling with a long term version towards the future? Yes and they are willing to trade assets for a high price. But none of the moves they made so far has thrown away next season either. They signed DeJesus which helps next years team, they traded Marshall but got a SP back to pitch in the majors next year. Losing Marshall hurts the pen, but you will like have Cashner there this season and have other good young relievers to fill in. They traded Colvin/LeMahieu but got Ian Stewart to be their third baseman next season. Now they swapped Zambrano who pitched like a back end starter last year and got a back end starter in return to replace him. Both have upside to pitch better due to Zambrano past history and Volstad talent/upside/age. So is the team better? Well you can make a case that the defense has improved with DeJesus and Stewart. You can make a case that the rotation is younger/deeper then last season. While the bullpen might not be as good. It can still be pretty good with Cashner likely taking Marshall spot and Wood to still resign. DeJesus is a upgrade in RF offensivly and you can make a case Stewart could come close to matching Carlos Pena offensive production from last year. Yes so far we added nobody who could replace Ramirez bat yet. But we also don't know yet who is playing first next season yet either. Or if they are going to get rid of Soriano and replace him with a better bat(you gotta hope Soto hits better next season as well). My point is this team hasn't done anything yet to make me think they will suck way worse then 2010-2011 and I think they could even be better. Is better enough to be a playoff team? Probably not unless things really go there way. But I don't see any of this throwing away next year yet, especially when they have money to spend and good free agents still available. Of course we could trade Garza, Soto, Byrd and Marmol and that could all change. But right now that's all media hype and rumors. Plus who says they don't get a young front in starter ready to take over for Garza back in the deal if that does happen? Or don't go out and sign a SP to replace Garza. My point is this off season is still incomplete, they can still go in the direction of adding players to make them better and have the money to do so. I'm sure they will still consider selling off assets for high return. But I believe Theo when he says they aren't going to just punt away next season either. So far none of these off season moves would suggest that (most of players added help next season and beyond) and there still in the position to sign and trade for players who improve the major league team next year. You have to be the most optimistic poster here or you're totally delusional. I'm betting on delusional. That would probably be a bad bet. But it doesn't surprise me to see the veteran posters here at NSBB react the way they do. I been reading this board for a while and I guess some things never change. Like the negativity, overvalue of some players and the flipping out/overreaction of some roster moves. I can't even count some of the quality moves the Cubs made over the years, that the GM's around here flipped out over at first. That said this board does have some good discussions and some smart posters, if you can ignore all the other stuff. All I'm saying is I don't believe Theo/Hoyer are done adding players this off season and the team will be competitive in 2012. I don't think they are in a full rebuild especially when Kaplan and other media people with no inside knowledge are the ones reporting this stuff. I don't think Kaplan understands that you can make any player available for the right price doesn't mean you are going to trade them all and start over. How many times has Theo said they weren't going to punt away the season next year? So they will try to make team competitive and give them a chance to win if a lot goes there way. I guess to a lot of people around here competitive and bad are the same thing. Too me competitive means there's a chance of being good if a few things go your way. Bad is no chance, even if a handful things go your way. Anyways keep in mind that Theo said that the team was in the position to wait out the market this year. There isn't that one player to put them over the top, so they aren't going to go hard after any one player or overpay for anyone. But with potentially 30 million dollars still to spend if they choose too and a lot of good free agents still on the market. I'm confident that they will end up with some players over the next month when the price tags start to go down. I could only imagine how different the tone would be towards next year a month from now. If say the Cubs signed Fielder and Kuroda(1 year deal), traded Soriano while replacing him with Luke Scott(1 year deal) and kept Garza. I'm not crazy and know that's all a long shot to happen. But I think a lot of fans would pull a 180 on their feelings on next years team if that did happen. I like the cut of your jib.

I've got many pots boiling here. To be perfectly honest, dave, if it was just you making that argument then it wouldn't be worth singling out. I brought it up because there is actually a decent number of posters talking themselves out of the idea of signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30 because of a combination of a variation of Theo rhetoric and apparent residual trauma from the Soriano signing.

Then fie on him. And fie on Ricketts. FOR NOW. I HATE BEING THE BREWERS.

"Cautiously optimistic" is just the diplomatic way of saying what I'm saying. We pretty much have the same conclusion on this; I'm just more caustic about it.

I can't buy that argument. It's like claiming the Iraq war is Obama's war. Until Hendry's contracts roll off, the team still has his footprint. The front office inherited a mess. They could have continued to band-aid the mess as has been done for 3 straight years, or they could blow it up and build it the their own way. Soriano's under contract for 3 more years. So the team is still Hendry's team until 2015?? He said Hendry's footprint. And obviously the fewer contracts from JH, the smaller the print (though he also gets credit for Castro). I think the point is that Theo ranking 2012 to make 2013+ better doesn't mean all of the failures of 2012 are on him, as jersey seemed to suggest. Rather, you hired a great GM to fix your organization, give him more than 1 season to do it. The pieces were/are there to be both better now and down the line.

You're hardly the only person that has argued against signing Fielder and Pujols here, so that was nicely egomaniacal.

Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad. Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this. You get posts like this when the player is a non-tender candidate. And they didn't "buy low." All buy-low players in this service time category are non-tender candidates. But let's go ahead and play this out. Imagine the Cubs non-tender Volstad in November. What has been lost in that scenario? Nothing. I never said they shouldn't have traded Zambrano for him.

I don't really care if I'm wrong with something like this because then it means he doesn't suck. But he'll probably suck.

Wow, somehow you think Stewart is the better buy low candidate? Volstad has peripherals that say he could have turned the corner. Stewart's peripherals say he's completely toast. I think Stewart is the better buy low candidate in terms of how stale bread is better than moldy bread. They're both are pretty awful and are probably just going to get worse.

How is that risky? What are you risking? A young starting pitcher with some upside and 3 years of team control, apparently. 1 year (at market value) of team control that matters. Wrong. The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points. And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market. He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of. There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

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. Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad. Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this. You get posts like this when the player is a non-tender candidate. And they didn't "buy low."

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. Signing Fielder right now would be a more prudent move than waiting for Votto (who may or may not even make it to FA). Banking on potential free agents not to be extended by their team or traded and extended while passing on current FAs is a flawed and dangerous strategy. The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year. That's my point; I'm surprised/amused at how often Votto is brought up here as a FA target when he'd be turning 31 that first season after he's signed and you'd have so many arguments against signing Fielder due to fatness and Pujols because he's 32 and how they don't fit into the plan of "the new Cubs." OK, how does a 31-year-old signing a huge contract fit into "the new Cubs" for those people?

I don't think anyone here doesn't prefer the idea of the Cubs generating more talent in-house than having to go shopping for it. The disappointment stems from them seemingly being a team that has resources that most of the rest of the league simply doesn't have or isn't willing to have, so the expectation/hope was that they'd be able to temper the path to internal superstardom with external impact pick-ups along the way. The hope was that they'd be one of those few teams with the luxury to do both (which makes me wonder how the percentage of teams that arguably can't add superstars via FA would skew those percentages) instead of one or the other. Hell, even those hoping for big spending this offseason were typically looking for a combination of two players involving the Cubans, Pujols or Fielder, Wilson or Darvish, and then another player from the pitching FA class next year, and not some bonkers spending spree where they just started picking up big names left and right immediately.

Wait, are you hiding the rest of that post somewhere?

I dont think hes keeping the Cubs from signing the Cubans, but his money is still added into the payroll. Its not a major issue but just 1 I dont see the need in spending 4.25 mil on a guy over 30 who brings zero long term value. There's value in keeping at least a decent product on the field so as not to tank attendance and damage revenues. But this team can still compete in 2013 or 2014, and DeJesus can be a part of that. Right. It's not like the Cubs need to play some kind of game to see how little they can spend this season. DeJesus is a valuable player who they got on the cheap who can ideally produce for the next 3 years.

David DeJesus isn't keeping the Cubs from signing the Cubans. If Ricketts' comments about the payroll staying around $130 million then they have money to spend.

Yeah, if Jim Hendry was known for anything it was how he shredded the reps of the Cliff Floyds and Jake Foxes of the world. Oh, right; davearm2 is no doubt talking about Zambrano. Yup, that sure was a "constant criticism" about Hendry across the board. Oh my lord. You don't recall the mountain of crap Hendry took over the Sosa situation? The Milton Bradley situation? People constantly complained about how Hendry killed guys' trade value by airing the dirty laundry, and making clear that he had to trade the player. Please tell me you haven't completely lost your mind, and want to challenge me on this. Yup, people "constantly complained" about Hendry killing players' value with the three guys he did it to during his nine years as GM. Man, three whole guys in a nearly a decade. The constant complaints were nearly deafening. Oh, right; plus he did actually help [expletive] up moving those guys when they arguably still had value. This little tangent is stemming from you inexplicably referring to these instances in a discussion about LaHair. Think about that for a second. Who gives a [expletive] about what anyone says about LaHair? He essentially has zero value with or without anyone throwing him under the bus. Hendry and the Cubs got [expletive] for how they handled those three guys because they helped turn bad situations even worse by willfully throwing them to the wolves. Obviously I don't want or expect Theo or anyone else to inexplicably badmouth LaHair, but it's a ludicrous comparison in the first place since LaHair is practically worthless. And if he inexplicably is made and remains a starter I think he'd probably end up with an OPS in the .700-.725 range.

I think there's very little chance Ryan Zimmerman will leave the Nationals. In fact, I'd be rather shocked. I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to why. Does he have a strong commitment to the team and/or city that I don't know about? Would he give a large "hometown discount?" He'll have been there for a while and there's a decent chance they'll be pretty damn good by the time he's a FA. I find it interesting how many times Votto's name comes up in terms of FA targets when he'll be 31 by the time he's available. He'll be 30 when he reaches FA. He'll be 28 this year and is a FA after the 2013 season He'll turn 31 during his first season after whatever deal he signs. We're really splitting hairs if we're thinking that turning 31 in, say, February instead of September really makes that much of a difference giving the hemming and hawing certain segments have been repeating ad nauseum about signing the right big players at "the right ages."

I think there's very little chance Ryan Zimmerman will leave the Nationals. In fact, I'd be rather shocked. I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to why. Does he have a strong commitment to the team and/or city that I don't know about? Would he give a large "hometown discount?" He'll have been there for a while and there's a decent chance they'll be pretty damn good by the time he's a FA. I find it interesting how many times Votto's name comes up in terms of FA targets when he'll be 31 by the time he's available.

Make no mistake, I am. Thoroughly. But I'm not going to get apoplectic over fluff comments. If the Cubs enter camp with LaHair as the 1B, I'll not be so forgiving. I'm not apoplectic. It's a thing that was said and I'm responding. No, I don't expect him to cater his comments to me but it would be nice if he did.