toonsterwu

The Raiders gave up a crapload for Carson Palmer. I'm still stunned at that move. The Raiders have nothing left in next year's draft, and they have some aging pieces. And if Carson plays enough to get a 1st in 2013 (or whatever the conditions are), that's what, 3 first round picks they've given up in recent years for aging guys (Seymour was the 3rd first rounder). I think Carson can still be a good QB, but he hasn't practiced this offseason, and he's clearly not the same guy as 2-3 years ago. You are also saying bye to Jason Campbell, who was playing well. Granted, he's hurt, but that's got to suck for Jason - playing well and then essentially getting dismissed from the team's future (no way the team gives up that much for Carson and he isn't the favorite to be the starter next year).

Honestly, not much about AFL has changed my mind about where I had my list as of now. The only change I might make is to slide Dillon Maples down a slot. I think it's always difficult to read too much into AFL, considering the interesting dynamics that go on there in regards to pitchers.

I don't know about that comment on Rhee, to be honest. The Cubs restricted him last year. Keep in mind, he didn't really "pass" A ball - he had a good start, got hurt, TJ, and then was restricted last year. If the slider isn't showing improvement next year, then yes, there's cause to be concerned about his future as a rotation option. As of now, though? He's working deep into games and he's showing two plus pitches. And to say it was a great run at the end of the season is somewhat flawed (as it seems to suggest only a few good starts). He was basically solid for the entire 2nd half of the year. As for Wells, it's easy to forget how young he is. I'm not that concerned yet that the breaking ball isn't a plus pitch. Next year, I'd be concerned if it wasn't showing progress.

I do mildly wonder about Greg Rohan. Not a lot ... but am mildly curious if he might become a ... Russ Canzler type of useful versatile corner guy in AAA, someone who might, in the right situation, get some call-ups.

That's the key here. It doesn't matter how much Epstein is worth compared to Jim Hendry or me or you. It matters how much Epstein is worth over Rick Hahn or Josh Byrnes or whoever. And the answer is: Not a nearly-ready prospect with any impact potential. Those things are worth quite a bit. I don't agree with your first point. And McNutt is not a nearly ready prospect. Well, that really comes down to how you define nearly ready. He very well could be ready at some point in 2012, if he is healthy. He's close to being bullpen ready, as soon as he finds consistency on the breaking ball again, and being rotation ready will probably take a few more months, but 2012 isn't out of the question. The stuff, potential are all there, and it's clear that the injuries, blisters and ribs, hampered him this year (the ribs issue was more evident with his control/command issues in the summer, but the blister issues could impact his potential to harness his secondary pitches).

Sure, but at the end of the day, the Red Sox can still stay, okay Theo, sit home for a year. Can they? Would Theo's contract as GM allow him to not be the GM? Obviously you can't make him sell popcorn on the contract. What are the limitations on what you can assign him to do? I cannot comprehend how the Red Sox who: -Granted permission for the interview -Have leaked that they've promoted a new GM -Will owe an employee they don't want $6.5M -Have nothing to gain by keeping Theo have the leverage in this situation. The Red Sox have leverage IF a) As noted in the Goldstein article today, they have the most desirable asset in the negotiations. b) Are willing to eat the money owed to Theo. c) Are willing to live with WWTD articles if the Red Sox struggle or fail to make a move. Are any of these things reasonable from an overall business management perspective? No. Do I think they would do it? Probably not. But in business, leverage comes from perception as much as it comes from reality at times (speaking very generically). Furthermore, Lucchino's been looking to get back at his protege for some time, after Theo essentially won a power struggle in Boston. When emotions are at play, what is reasonable isn't always what is prioritized, and let's face it, with Theo gone, until it's shown otherwise, Lucchino has Henry and Werner's ear. I'd also add that they could view intellectual property not working as being better than having intellectual property go elsewhere. I have no idea how they view things, but if they are willing to do it or willing to let everyone think they'll do it, well, perception matters a lot in business. For all the bluster about how we have a lot of Plan B's available, and for all the talk about how GM's don't matter, Theo to the Cubs has been so built up that turning away from it now is much harder than people think. For all the talk about PR spin, most fans don't give a rats ass about minor leaguers, to be honest. I do, many here do, but in general? Not that much. Furthermore, the longer the situation drags out, the tougher the situation is for any incoming GM to assess the organization, to build up the systems he needs, and so forth. Now, in saying that, if they are asking for McNutt and more (and Goldstein and Mooney suggest that) and want to limit who Theo can take, then I think you call their bluff. But both sides need this deal

Oh, I just got around to reading the Mooney article. If it's McNutt and a 2nd solid prospect (although Mooney doesn't really suggest what type of talent the 2nd prospect would have to be), I'd be pretty pissed with that. All my previous posts had related to the idea of McNutt for Theo, but McNutt and another solid prospect for Theo would be overkill no matter how many guys Theo brought with him, IMO.

Sure, but at the end of the day, the Red Sox can still stay, okay Theo, sit home for a year. I don't think they want to, as that's a lot of pressure on Ben Cherington in his first year (any bad situation that comes up for the Red Sox, and I bet the media would come out with, WWTD articles), but the fact that they can means that they can push this as long as they want, until they feel satisfied. I'm not saying I think giving up McNutt is right or fair, or whatever, but I'm saying that, it might be the price to get the deal done because of the leverage they have (and I find it ridiculous that some folks are suggesting that McNutt wouldn't be a top 8 prospect in the Sox system, saw that somewhere, I think he should get ranked ahead of Matt Barnes, who most have in the top 8), and if that's the case, then you negotiate to get a better return from our side. I don't think, despite comments in this thread suggesting otherwise, that the Cubs can realistically walk away from Theo right now unless the Red Sox demands were completely ridiculous, and well, I like McNutt a lot, but I don't think McNutt should be completely untouchable in such a deal. But that's me.

If it literally would allow Theo to pilfer whatever 5 or 6 guys he wants, sure. I think that'd be a great help to him. Otherwise, no way in hell. Lets say for example... the offer is J Jax/Flaherty plus maybe a "sleeper" prospect (a rumor that was posted on here) for Theo only (or maybe 1 guy can go with him that is down on Theo's list and Red Sox don't care if that guy leaves).... Now lets say if the offer was changed to McNutt/Flaherty plus "sleeper" prospect for Theo and like 3 or 4 (or possibly more) of the guys that ARE on the top of his list... Would you do the trade? IMO, I would do that trade. Theo would have several guys in the Cubs organization right away and wouldn't have to overhaul it in one offseason (heck if he got his guys, he can slowly bring guys in the organization the next 2 years instead of trying to get most of them this offseason). Because of that, Theo can focus on the team and the offseason (FA/trades/etc...) instead of doing everything plus trying to hire guys to be in the organization. McNutt is worth giving up if it means Theo can bring the guys that HE want over to the Cubs. Well, who is the sleeper prospect? If it means giving up one of our high ceiling arms or positional players along with McNutt? I'd lean against no. There's always other guys he can hire, and I'm sure his confidantes throughout the league, like Jed Hoyer, can give him good recommendations. Furthermore, don't most of the rumors point to one aGM slot being filled by Josh Byrnes. There has to be some limit. I'm not against giving up McNutt, but it comes down to who that sleeper prospect is for me to say, I'm okay with the 2nd deal.

Jay Jackson or Carpenter are the best pitchers we should be willing to give up. If they want more, Ricketts should send a polaroid of his butthole. At the end of the day, both sides are going to have to give a bit. I'd rather not give up McNutt, but that was always within the realm of possibility (BJax was always that one that seemed quite unlikely to be moved, despite the media reports). I like McNutt, have defended his down season as I have seen the flashes of the breaking ball still being plus, and have heard the change has improved in potential. That said, both sides need to get this deal done, and guys like J. Jackson and Chris Carpenter, well, they aren't integral enough to center-piece this deal around if the Red Sox wanted to play hard-ball and get something of value. I mean, best case scenario for both guys is that they add some middle relief help to the Red Sox next year, and the Red Sox can pay for middle relief help if they need it, and plenty of arms in the system that are as intriguing, if not moreso, than them. Now, I had hoped a numbers approach might get them to do it (give them multiple guys that may fill key roles for them, an upper level catcher in case Lavarnaway can't stick there, a infielder that can play 3rd to give Middlebrooks more time and act as insurance for Youkilis, maybe a pen arm), but certainly, they could view that approach as being pointless considering their budget (even with the bad contracts, they still likely are able to spend some to fill out those small roles). I'm not against giving up one or two high ceiling pieces in the lower levels, but the Red Sox may want a more immediate return. I actually prefer taking on a bad contract to giving up key talent. All that said, there were few upper level high ceiling pieces that would likely intrigue, and McNutt was at the top of the list. I don't think he's a guy that you absolutely say is untouchable in a deal like this, but if you move him, you need a better return, whether that's giving Theo more guys he wants to work with, or something else. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather not move McNutt, but the Cubs realistically can't go to Plan B anymore considering everyone knows how far this went, and the Red Sox can't realistically have Theo around, so both sides have to give some and find a balance. Neither side is going to play hard-ball and win outright here. I hope we don't give up McNutt, but I'm not against it in the right deal.

It's not as bad as you seem to think on the pitching side. We should have a fairly intriguing trio in the AA rotation next year if McNutt is around (something like McNutt/Rhee/Antigua, with Whitenack possibly coming back late in the year, with maybe Beeler in that A+/AA mix). The AAA rotation could have Struck, Rusin, Coleman, J. Jackson, etceteras, depending on how Rule 5 goes. The real hope pitching wise lies in the lower levels, where we have an excellent crop of young arms with high ceilings with guys like Wells, Maples, Paulino, Peralta, Cruz, Liria, Jensen (if he starts), Kyler Burke, Reed, and a couple others. There's some solid lefty options in the system as well (aforementioned Cruz and Antigua, along with Del Valle, I still like Hicks a bit, and then the average stuff, end of rotation hope guys like Rusin/Raley/Jokisch/Rosscup/Harman). It's not a great pitching system yet, because there aren't many great upper level pieces, but the system as a whole, I wouldn't really call it pitching-starved.

I sort of 2nd that. I'm not that against McNutt being moved, although I'm certainly not pleased by it, but if we are giving up a guy with a good ceiling, a guy who might be a top 5-7 prospect in the Sox system, I would hope that Epstein gets to bring at least 1 or 2 of his confidantes. That said, a lot of time to go. I imagine the Cubs will fight that and go with guys a tier or so below that.

His ceiling is higher. I mean, he could end up back of the rotation, but his ceiling is higher. An end of the rotation starter typically only has average velocity and decent secondary pitches. McNutt still has a fastball that can hit the mid-90's as a starter. The issues right now are consistency with the secondary pitches, but there were moments this year where his breaking ball still flashed it's plus potential, and there were a few games where his changeup looked decent and improved from the past. I think his ceiling is that of a "2", which is typically, what, 2 plus pitches, average 3rd, average command. Not saying he'll reach that, but I think it's fair to call that his ceiling. I do think he is a bit under-the-radar/under-hyped right now, but that said, I also think he was a bit over-hyped last year.

Anibal Sanchez has had his issues in the past. But this 2 seasons of close to 200 innings of work. I wouldn't be concerned giving him a 3 or 4 year deal because of his past (outside of the general concern that comes with any pitcher). The velocity's sharper and he's hitting his prime (next year is his age 28 season). If we were simply looking at talent, I'd put Greinke above Hamels. Since it isn't only talent, I'd put them about on par. Danks sort of hovers between the Marcum level and the Greinke/Hamels level for me.

Well, the last list I saw had Hamels, Cain, Danks, Greinke, Anibal Sanchez (if he keeps up his performance from this year, he'll jump up the list of FA options sooner than later, furthermore, considering he's with the Marlins, he might be one of the guys that has a good shot of making it to FA), amongst others. There were solid 2nd tier arms like Shaun Marcum. Liriano was out there. There's a bevy of club option guys that could be intriguing. A lot of these guys likely get signed down (I imagine the Brewers will likely try to keep one of Greinke or Marcum beyond 2012 and I gotta think Hamels becomes a priority for Ruben Amaro Jr., but I feel like a couple of these guys should make it. Who knows.

I'm inching more towards not making that one big splash (particularly on a positional player) this off-season, although I won't be angry if we do. While we can compete sooner than later by spending, I'm just not sure a championship caliber core can be in place soon enough to justify said move. I think the earliest timeline for when said core may be in place is probably 2 years from now, and as it relates to some of the key positional players on the market, I'm just not sold how good these guys will be when the core is in place. Furthermore, in a market that has several teams that likely will be able to spend cash, along with the fact that we're coming off a poor season and rebuilding, I'm very wary of significantly over-paying to land someone (in general). The Nationals have a lot of money lying around and may push for CJ Wilson or Prince Fielder. Blue Jays have money to spend. Both are situations that look as good, if not better, than us. All that said, I'm okay with pushing for 3 of the guys you've listed moreso than the others - Darvish, Wilson, Reyes, probably in that order. I like Sabathia a ton, but 5/125 may not be enough and that's just scary. I think Garza/Dempster "2/3 SP acquisition" will be a solid front 3, and the rotation could be fine if we get a 4/5 starter that can eat innings to go with the other signing. I'm also looking at the 2013 FA pitching class, which looks much better as of now (granted, could change), and we'll have more flexibility to be aggressive next offseason, with Z's deal gone and Soriano's almost over. Beltran's just old. Even if he's rock solid for 2012 and perhaps 2013 (and he does have an injury history to be concerned with, along with his age), what's he going to be in 2014 and 2015? If you can get him for 3 years, okay, but I have my doubts. I'm fine going after Reyes, but I think he's going to decline from his high this year. I guess Wilson comes with a caveat of how many years (I mean, if it's 5 guaranteed, I'd be a bit concerned - I think I'm okay with 4 and an option), but otherwise, okay, I'm okay pushing there. I think with Darvish, you have to trust your scouts. They may be wrong (maybe he isn't able to grip the different balls as well, maybe he doesn't adjust for some reason), but if your scouts say he's fine to take the chance on, then this is a FA signing that doesn't impact the draft, potentially addresses a big need, and opens the Japanese market in ways that Kosuke Fukudome could only dream about. If Ricketts approves the likely high cost that it would take to nab him, no problems there. I think it's more an issue of fan expectation with Darvish - if you expect some elite world-beater, one of the best in the game right away, the chances are high some fans will be disappointed. I'm not saying we should just sit back and wait 2 years. We need to build towards that core, but I'm just not completely sold this is the right time to aggressively push in FA, particularly since we may have to over-spend in years, money, or both. But I'll trust whoever the GM is and Tom Ricketts, who has earned enough goodwill for me to have some faith. I just think that we can likely build a team for 2012, particularly on the positional side, with several 2nd tier signings that will be as effective, if not moreso, than making one (really, 3) big splashes, provided we make some prudent decisions/gambles, and that this will put us in better positioning for future FA classes. Anyhow, just some late night thoughts that I've expressed elsewhere. Edit: I'm ambivalent on Fielder (due to years moreso than AAV - if he's getting 6 or 7 years, I'd back the heck out), leaning no on Pujols unless there's some odd discount. Maybe Pujols is some exception to the rule of aging, but there's a high chance that he'll hit a decline sooner than later.

My only comparison there was that they were both guys who came up in the Mariners system without much power and developed power later in their careers. It wasn't meant to be any deeper than that.

Too many more important guys to protect: Vitters, Flaherty, Szczur, Clevenger, and Jackson, possibly Lake and Rhee although i cant see a team keeping either of them on their big league roster all season. If someone takes Hatley, I'm OK with it. Hatley's fairly down the list of guys that are more important to me, but there's always been a general feeling that the Cubs organization held him in higher esteem than his production/ability, so that to me, particularly considering he did get an AFL slot (granted, Muyco got a slot last year, but Hatley has far more potential than Muyco), makes him a guy to watch when it comes to Rule 5.

Hatley's slider came and went this season. I don't know if it has enough quality and consistency to it as of now to get upper level guys out consistently. That said, he is eligible for Rule 5, so a strong performance at some point could get a scout asking their GM to take a chance, unless the Cubs protect him.

I think the Red Sox say no to that without blinking an eye. The salaries are roughly a wash for 2012 (36-34.75). In 2013, the Cubs would have an additional 17.25 million added on, but in 2014, that number, due to the 10 mil you want the Red Sox to send, would be 7.5 mil. The last three years of the Crawford deal would cost the Cubs 10.5, 10.75, and 11 mil. I thought the Crawford contract was a bad idea when it happened (still not sure why some people defended that deal online as a shrewd move), but getting the two better talents, along with an upgrade at GM at that price would be worth it for us. I mean, Crawford probably won't be worth 10.5, 10.75, and 11 mil at that stage of his career (although not impossible), but considering we're getting our GM and improved production the first three years, it's probably worth it. For the Red Sox, unless they think the clubhouse issues with Lackey are that severe, they are better off asking for minor league talent and playing Lackey/Crawford. Furthermore, Crawford is still viewed as a good guy for the clubhouse, so I think they'll likely prefer to keep him around. Furthermore, Soriano makes little sense for them. He doesn't fit anywhere (they need to save DH opportunities for Youkilis), he's not good for the clubhouse, and well, he's not good.) Zambrano for Lackey would be trading one headcase for another, except Zambrano's outbursts probably outdo Lackey (not that that is a good thing for Lackey). I think this is going to end up being minor leaguers or cash, but since we're talking hypotheticals, I think Lackey, 8 mil a year, Theo for Ryan Flaherty, Steve Clevenger, and Chris Carpenter makes some sense for both sides. We get our GM and a 4/5 starter at a passable 7.25 mil/year for 3 years. Red Sox save 8 mil a year, don't have a lame duck Theo year, get some infield depth to buy time for Middlebrooks, get an upper level catcher in case Lavarnaway can't stick at catcher, and a possible power pen arm to potentially replace Bard, who might replace Papelbon. It's a lot to give up, but Boston's going to want something for giving Theo his out.

I don't mind giving LaHair a look as a corner bench bat in the spring. If he fails to make the cut, an agreement could be worked out where he either gets FA or heads to Japan, assuming he doesn't want to go back to the minors. I think he's made legit power improvements relative to who he was in the Mariners system, but he doesn't intrigue me enough to give him anything more than a chance at a bench spot. That's all he can really ask for. If a guy's going to break out, he'll show it enough to get the staffs attention. Michael Morse started 2011 as a platoon guy in Washington this year. He ended up breaking out. Hmm ... Morse is actually an interesting guy to relate to LaHair in that, coming up in the Mariners system, neither had much power (although for different reasons, Morse kept on getting bigger, while with LaHair, there were swing issues to work out).

I have him roughly 16-20 right now. I'm not putting him ahead of Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, Matt Szczur, Javier Baez, Marco Hernandez, and Dae-Eun Rhee. I could see a case for him at 7, I guess, but much as I am fascinated by Jeimer, he still has to grow into that hoped for power potential. But that's me.

Sure, which is why I added if you think he can stick at short. But viewing them as corner talents, though, and it's actually a closer comparison based on what we know right now. Baez has more present power, and may have more future power, but Candelario should develop power. Candelario has a better approach . Now, whether or not Candelario can handle third would be a critical factor. I'm not saying I have Candelario ahead of Baez (I don't - still have Baez Top 6, with Candelario borderline top 20), not saying that I think Candelario's upside is better (I don't). I just think that it's far closer than what is generally acknowledged when discussing these two players.

Probably solid top 7 in regards to guys 20 and under, perhaps top 5. To be honest, outside of the "known" factor, I'm not sure there's a significant difference between Javier Baez's upside and Jeimer Candelario's upside, unless one thinks Baez has a shot to stick at short (just to be clear, I think Baez's upside is probably higher as he seems to have a higher power ceiling, just not sure it's significantly higher). Marco Hernandez, for me, is still ahead due to position and a year stateside seeing what he can do.

I don't know if he actually will, but it's not impossible when you consider some of the factors out there (namely, weak FA pitching class). In an ideal world, he wouldn't get paid much more than Randy Wells next year. Basically the same level of pitching talent.