toonsterwu

My problem with this line of thinking is that we haven't seen guys of his ilk try to produce late into their 30s outside of the steroid era when pitching is used like it is now. I mean, you're looking at guys who were elite(ish) late in their careers in the 60s-80s before the 6 inning start became prevalent and you're seeing a different reliever every time you come up late in games and those guys are throwing mid to upper 90s pretty regularly. The loss of bat speed, especially against those late inning guys, along with the fact that you're seeing guys be able to give more max effort early in games makes me nervous about aging superstars in the near future. Perhaps. I'd still rather they take the chance. I'm not against them taking the chance, particularly depending on how the deal is structured (I'd feel a bit better if it wasn't as bottom-heavy of a deal, and instead, perhaps utilized the expiring Zambrano and Soriano contracts to make it top heavy ... few teams do that, although one contract recently was along those lines, can't think of which one though), I'm just wary enough to be concerned when there are legitimate reasons to be. Look, if they win it all in 2012 or 2013, then screw it, the future be damned and we can piss and moan about it here in a couple years.

Furthermore, he didn't do that early in his Red Sox tenure. The first year was marked by heavy attempts to find bargains in Rule 5, small signings in Mueller, Millar, Ortiz, adding guys like Arroyo. Granted, markedly different situations he's walking into so you never know if he changes his approach. That said, they didn't get really aggressive, overall, until, IIRC, 2006 (at least, that's the first year I remember the Red Sox aggressively over-slotting in the draft).

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player. That's a flawed analysis that assumes a lot of things about the human body that we can't answer without knowing more detailed information about Pujols medical record. We could go back and forth on this, and in the end, neither party would have anything more than speculation on when he might decline or if he'll manage to defy nature. But you do leave out the other point that I made in conjunction with that - Pujols has already shown some slippage in play over the last 2 seasons. That's been marked by a steady increase of Pujols chasing pitches outside the zone. His great hit tool has allowed him to still maintain star performance, just not elite performance, but when that bat speed slows down ... what happens next. Furthermore, he's had some more struggles on the fastball than in year's past.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal.

The way you avoid a financial bind the Cubs were just in is two fold: 1) Develop a strong farm system that consistently pumps out cheap, productive major leaguers. We didn't do that during Hendry's tenure, so we had to sign both major stars and role players to multi-million dollar deals. A team with the Cubs' budget can do one of the two but not both. 2) Don't sign non-star players to star contracts. We did this with Soriano and it hurt us significantly. The thing is, none of the FAs mentioned are anything like Soriano, other than they're very expensive. Pujols/Prince/Wilson are stars and it's ok to give star contracts to star players. If you can do these two things, it's ok to give out a couple or three massive contracts when your payroll is $130-$150 million. Having Pujols and Wilson taking up $50 million of our annual budget when Z comes off the books next year, Soriano comes off in 2014, and we have lots of good prospects set to hit the majors over the next couple of years, and having Theo/Hoyer/McLeod to turn our system into a machine is perfectly fine. It certainly won't necessarily lead to a similar financial bind we found ourselves in under Hendry. I think the 2nd part is somewhat debatable. Again, I'm more concerned about years than money, as I noted initially. Pujols is in his early 30's. Unless he's an exception to the rule, father time will catch up soon and you never know how fast a guy can slip. I'm not saying he'll go from star to irrelevant, but he could be a significant burden a few years down the road. I mean, Alex Rodriguez has really fallen of late and is a significant burden. Fielder is a different equation, due to his youth. I'm just not keen on giving any player 7-8 year deals, but of the two, I'd be more open to that.

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term? There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example. Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title. Do we even have 5-7 spots to fill for next season? Was really speaking more hypothetically when I typed that. That said, it really comes down to how Epstein and Co. evaluate the talent. There's certainly enough guys that can be released off the 40.

I think Maples is in that mix from 5/6 to the early 20's. After the reports from AzPhil, I'll probably slide him down a couple slots. Hey, do we need this as a separate thread? Not that I care too much, but seems like it could fit at the end of the rankings thread.

I'm fine giving up Samardzija. He's a passable/decent middle relief arm that can be replaced.

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term? There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example. Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title.

In 2 years as a starter, Wilson has averaged a 5.25 WAR per season. Cain: 3.4 avg WAR/28 years old in 2013/1 5+ WAR season Danks: 3.2 avg WAR/28 years old in 2013/0 5+ WAR seasons Greinke: 3.8 avg WAR/28 years old in 2013/2 5+ WAR seasons Hamels: 3.8 avg WAR/29 years old in 2013/0 5+ WAR seasons (though 1 4.9 WAR season) Dan Haren is set to be a FA if his option isn't picked up as well. With this post I'm not necessarily arguing Wilson is better than all of them. But he's right up there with every one of those pitchers and we don't know which of these pitchers, if any, will actually hit FA next year. I'd assume Greinke will not be in Milwaukee after next year, but what if he's dealt to the Yankees (for example) at the deadline next year and they re-up him? I could easily see the Phillies re-upping Hamels, the DBacks picking up Haren's option, the Sox bringing back or trading Danks, and the Giants hanging onto Cain. You don't pass on a sure thing like Wilson in the off chance that similar players come available next year and that there are enough of them to drive the price down considerably. Whatever star players we sign, we're going to overpay. Might as well overpay for a sure thing, elite player with much less mileage than any of those guys have. as a side note, Anibal Sanchez is likely to be a FA after 2012, and considering he's on the Marlins, he might be the most realistic possibility to get to FA. He had past injury concerns but has strung together back to back 195+ inning seasons at an average of 4 WAR. If he does that next year again (high IP and solid WAR), I'll be fine taking a risk on a 4 year deal for a 29 year old pitcher in 2013.

Seems likely he'll stick around if he wants to. Ricketts specifically hired him, so I'm sure there's a way to fit him in. Ricketts has been good to guys he likes, like Fleita and Wilken, so I imagine Kaplan will have a chance to stick if he wants. Furthermore, Boston is likely to limit guys leaving with Theo, so he'll need some outside hires for awhile

If Ryan left, we'd basically need 3 starters this year, and that's assuming Randy Wells can be consistent, like he was before this year. That said, considering Ryan's age, I don't know if I'd offer more than 2 and an option.

He's actually pretty good on the radio. I listen to him when I go through Philly, and he's a fairly knowledgeable, fun, radio guy.

I'm not sure how much credibility I would put in that blog. I remember it was throwing out wild rumors a couple years ago that largely didn't come true. It's possible I'm thinking of another blog, but pretty sure it was this one.

Well, Kenney would be losing some power I guess, so I can see this sort of ringing true. That said, I take everything from the media in this process with a grain of salt. Boston media is blaming Kenney (gee, wonder which side leaked that information), while wasn't it Leviine the other day that was blaminig Henry? I'm pretty dubious of a claim that Crane Kenney either was holding up negotiations without Ricketts's knowledge, or that Ricketts was ok with it. I'm also dubious that Kenney would be "in hot water" with the commissioner because of the talks being held up an extra day. I still think the Chicago reports are more likely true - that Henry was holding things up otherwise the deal would be done. I mean, Kaplan and Levine were close to right about things being done on Friday, so it sure feels like pressure from Selig came down.

ah, this looks like Jaypers site. Zych is way too high for my tastes - unless we know that the slider is consistently above average, I just don't see how a fastball guy deserves to be rated ahead of say, Carpenter and Dolis, amongst others.

Well, Kenney would be losing some power I guess, so I can see this sort of ringing true. That said, I take everything from the media in this process with a grain of salt. Boston media is blaming Kenney (gee, wonder which side leaked that information), while wasn't it Leviine the other day that was blaminig Henry?

On paper, Quade was a good candidate, a guy who had experience managing in the minors, had MLB experience, had been in different organizations (and namely, the A's at the turn of the century), was supposed to be a good teacher of fundamentals, and showed some level of awareness for stats, whereas Lou seemed blind at times on that. I was as big a proponent out there of Quade, but it just hasn't worked out. He had a bad team, but he also had some odd decisions. I wouldn't be against Theo using Quade in his first year, as Quade seems like the type of manager that Theo could control a bit better and that might be appealing to him. That said, I'm not expecting Quade back. My first preference is still DeMarlo Hale. He seems as deserving of an opportunity as anyone, and Theo and Co. should know him fairly well.

Hopefully theres nothing better than Evan Crawford or Grahem Hicks on that list. I actually am a bit intrigued with Hicks, depending on what his health status is. Projectable young lefties with starting potential always hold a level of intrigue. On the other hand, Crawford looks like a system guy. My guess is that the list will be some low level talent, which is dangerous considering that's where the talent intrigue is right now, but it's something you live with. I could see them go after arms. I could also see Hoyer/McLeod getting Theo to consider a trade for Chase Headley. They have enough third base options that are ready and in the upper levels such that, if we don't bring Aramis back, Chase could be an intriguing option.

I don't see the Marlins doing a Z/Barney/Prospects deal for LoMo/Nolasco unless we give them their choice of 3-5 guys from the farm and eat a huge chunk of salary, and even then, that might not be enough. I mean, we're talking about an excellent first base prospect that's cost-controlled and a, in his prime, 3/4 starter. Marlins may have been boneheaded with regards to their LoMo decision, but they haven't had a recent history of significantly boneheaded trades when it comes to trading for young talent. As for Saunders, don't want him unless it's on the cheap. I think he's 5th on that list for me. CJ Wilson is clearly first. Edwin Jackson hasn't been bad in the NL. It's just, with the White Sox, throwing his sliders more, he looked like a number 3 starter. In the NL, he's been more end of the rotation level, but I'd take his potential to be like the arm he was in Chicago over Joe Saunders. Vazquez probably pitches for the Marlins or goes to retirement. He'd be an interesting 1-2 year addition if he wanted to come, but I doubt it. If Maholm came at say, 5 mil, I'd be interested. If he comes more at 8-9 mil ... not so sure I'm all that curious. Granted, we have money to burn that the Pirates can only dream about, so if they do let him go, it's not a bad thought, but I'd be wary of over-paying for Maholm.

Can I straddle the fence and say I simply hope for smart decisions? I'm not against going after big ticket signings (and we should include Aramis in that group I guess), but I don't think I want to give FU money (which suggests to me contracts like Soriano), as it's so put, to players. Now, if it's contracts like, say, Sabathia's (with the early opt-out to allow CC to get more money) or Furcal (when he signed with the Dodgers over us, IIRC, he took a higher AAV short term rather than 1 more year with us), I'm more okay with that, but only Fielder would seem like the guy that might consider something like that (and my guess is that Boras won't do that type of deal, knowing the concerns people have about Fielder long term). I'd obviously lean towards giving money over years. I'm just not sure a championship core can be put in place one offseason, and the goal should be towards putting that core together, rather than a brief window (in saying that, if we win it all just once, then okay, it's worth it). At earliest, perhaps the core could be in place in 2013 (I mean, honestly, I really only see 2 guys that feel like potential key pieces to a championship core in Garza/Castro). We don't have the farm system right now to swing big deals either, to add to whatever needs that may arise during a season. Now, I'm not a believer, as some non-Cubs fans have posted elsewhere, that the Cubs should be torn down and rebuilt either. I don't believe we need to do that, and I'm not sure that is in the Cubs best interest. I do think the club needs to be competitive in the short term. But some of the key free agents look like they could start to wear down significantly in 3-4 years, when hopefully, some of the low minor talent has risen and we have started to piece together a solid core group of guys. If so, I don't want contracts that could eventually have a Soriano-esque influence when we should be in the full-swing of our window, assuming all goes well. Again, I'm simply hoping for smart decisions for the long term health of the club. I think I would prioritize adding pitching first over positional talent (and the big ticket positional guys, Fielder/Pujols, will likely take awhile). There's a good looking potential FA pitching class in 2013 as of now, but you never know what may happen in a year, and you can never have enough pitching. Unfortunately, this isn't exactly a FA pitching class teaming with guys early in their prime. Most of it is the typical aging talent, guys at the end of their primes, like Ryan Dempster (if he doesn't pick up the player option). Originally, I had been leaning towards giving Dempster some sort of 2-year deal, but knowing the type of budget that Epstein has supposedly been given and his unwillingness to pay for past performance (justifiably so), if Epstein can't carry to an agreement on a longer deal with Ryan and Ryan wants to be back on that option, then ok. I think you need to add two guys on top of that, and we can live with back-loaded deals since Z and Soriano's contracts will be coming off the books in the near future. CJ Wilson at 5/75 sounds ... troubling, but perhaps livable knowing the type of budget that Theo may have (this was something a GM supposedly told Heyman in one of his columns). I think you push hard there, but the competition is likely to be heavy. If the AAV gets near 18-20 mil, though, or if he's looking at 6 years, I think you back out. Just too risky. I think you explore the trade market, but Plan B to CJ should ideally be a FA, to save our assets. Edwin Jackson would be next, but I'd have to have a strong pitching coach in place that tells him not to go to his fastball so much (that's about the only difference I can see from his D-backs/Cardinals performance to his White Sox performance, as he was noticeably better with the White Sox and went with the slider more). I could see Edwin get something similar to Dempster's last contract with us, something like 4/48-4/52, but that's just a guess on my part, and this is a weak market, so you never know what could happen. The other pitching signing can be a gamble of some sort, a short term deal for a guy. There's enough guys on the market that could fit that. If the price was right for 2 big ticket items (say CJ Wilson and Edwin Jackson) or 1 big ticket item and 1 trade (still, if we give Brett the job, it's hard for me to see us winning any sort of trade market for a key starter, unless we go ridiculous on the offer), okay, but you don't want to lock the rotation down too much. Positionally, you take a run at Fielder/Pujols/Aramis, but if things get out of control in terms of years and AAV, then I think you take a step back and start to piece together a group. That said, not the easiest market to find good gambles, particularly at 3rd base.

How much more impressive are CJ's numbers based on Arlington arguably having the most hitter-friendly park in MLB? I suppose that all depends on whether he's more of a FB pitcher or a GB pitcher. I know little to nothing about him other than the fact that he's pretty awesome at exercise/nutrition. He gets a healthy amount of groundballs. His GB% has largely been around 50% for his career, and it's been roughly the same the last two years as a starter. 49.2 in 10, and 49.3 in 11.

In terms of MLB overall, I think credit has to be given to Jon Daniels and his team with the Rangers right now. Both Levine and Preller are considered GM material, and they have John Hart in there helping them. The Rays group is up there as well, with Friedman/Hunsicker/Harrison and so forth. That said, in terms of the NL ... I can't think of another FO that I really like better than this current troika.

I'd be quite surprised if we gave up two arms slated for the AA rotation as of now. Pitching prospects get over-valued in trades. Not impossible, but I have my doubts that the Cubs would do that. If it's two A-ish level prospects, I'll guess ... Aaron Kurcz (pen arm that could be up in 2012 so could offer some help) and uh ... one of the high-ceiling arms perhaps, perhaps a Starling Peralta.

this is as unrealistic as I've seen SOSH awhile. Seems like a majority of the posters there believe that the Red sox can walk away from and keep Theo. I simply think that is next to impossible. Both sides have to bend a bit. Overthemonster is a bit more realistic on the situation, at least, with a good writer like Marc Normandin there. Actually, what irks me in reading Red Sox boards, and I've always been partial to the Red Sox, is that a lot of them seem to buy this stuff being spouted from the Boston media about how our whole system is crap and that there aren't any worthwhile/intriguing players below McNutt. Arguably, the most intriguing talent is below McNutt, in rankings and overall level right now. Honestly, their system is very similar to ours right now, maybe a tiny tick better (a few more of their upside guys have trickled into A/A+ than ours - that said, I still tend to think some of their top talents, like Middlebrooks/Matt Barnes/Boegarts and a couple others are overhyped), but that's it.