Sammy Sofa

He can make as many marginal upgrade trades as he damn well pleases, I don't give a crap about that. I want a freaking free agent or three to actually have an impact on their chances in 2012. It costs nothing but money and does nothing to damage their ability to contend in 2014 and beyond. That just isnt't true, and I know that you know it. I don't blame you for wanting to win now (that is, 2012). I'm on the other side of that fence - I can hold off a year of it means we are building something sustainable. I'm giving Thoyer a year or two to show me that their way is the right way. How does it cost more than money? He's not talking about signing somebody that will wind up blocking a top prospect. He's also not talking about how we need to win now. He's saying "hey, maybe we should try and add really good players now, that way we'll have them for 2013 beyond too!" Reclamation projects and pre-arb guys aren't the only ones under control for more than a year. Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

Measure now doesn't mean measured later. Pick your battles. The Cubs have money, but simply spending like crazy just to make it rain (see a declining, 32 year old Albert @ 10/265) is just idiotic. Now if someone else nabs Prince for less than 8-10 years, I'll start to wonder what people are thinking. Measured is fine in complimentary moves. Measured as the focus sucks.

You guys are too intimidated by big, swinging dicks. We need to embrace the big, swinging dicks.

To clarify, I'm not against signing any FAs. I'm against the notion that the only way or even the best way to fix this team is to spend tons on FA. Even the Yankees (the big swinging dicks on the NE) have more regrettable contracts than good ones. I don't think anyone here is saying it's the only or best way to fix the team. It's a way to help fix a team or strengthen it, and as it stands right now the Cubs seem to be shying completely away from it. Shutting out a significant tool to help build and better your team isn't fun and doesn't seem very smart. And why does it matter if the Yankees are overpaying? I'd love for the Cubs to be in that type of position where it doesn't matter. It sucks that they aren't.

Some of us are talking about realistic things. Like being big swinging dicks? Wanting the Cubs to at least be the Red Sox/Yankees of the NL Central is pretty [expletive] realistic.

yuuuuuuuuuuuuup I look it at this way: remember those video clips of Theo discussing J.D. Drew that we were all drooling over? That's the kind of complimentary signing I want to enjoy in the wake of the Cubs being monsters and crushing everything in their path a la the Red Sox or the Yankees. What's happening so far is that type of signing is apparently the focus for the Cubs instead of being complimentary. I DON'T WANT THAT. It's early, so I'm still hopeful things change, but measured, complimentary deals seemingly being the main direction of the team for the time being is depressing and will take foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Noooooooooooooooooope. I don't want measured. I want the Cubs to be the big swinging dicks of the Midwest.

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future. What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now. There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this. Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

hey if either of them has a hot april it will give you another late 20ish player to crush on. And if either of them make it out of the minors it will give you another major league player to bitch about. Because they suck? Well played.

It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres, Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012. Seriously, lets let 2012 go. Signing one of the best free agents available this offseason could absolutely have helped in competing in 2013 and beyond. That's where my frustration comes from. I didn't understand where your numbers were coming from, as I thought you were only using free agents signed in the last three years. Sorry. Are the chances of signing a free agent that puts up a 5+ WAR really that much less than obtaining somebody in the draft? If I were to guess, trades for soon to be major league stars is the most efficient way to obtain stars. Which suggests that a Garza trade would make sense. Yeah, ditto.

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."