weis21

There has been *some* money left on the table (at least last offseason). The point is there weren't any FA available to fit with the current roster at a price point that fit the assumed overall budget. Not any that would have made them a contender, only marginally improve the record to MAYBE mediocrity. That is, the weren't any mythical pre-prime FA that would have had a roster built around them that would have made any difference. By the time any expensive FA had a competitive team built around them (again, assuming financial constraints), they would be on the downswing of their careers. Not to mention, many, many of the big name FA signings the last few years have been huge busts. And if they are in the playoffs in 2016 (though I'm not throwing in the towel on 2015), they have as good a chance as any other playoff team to win the WS. Look, again, we're all sick and tired of losing. But, they have money to spend now and they've put themselves in the best position to be competitive for a long time. They've hedged their bets on some prospects flaming out by stockpiling a group of elite ones.

God, I hope so.

Right. It's just debatable whether that "middle ground" meant adding one or two players that would have possibly made a negligible difference in the standings. So, they chose to spend more of their resources on international signings, player development, DR facility, etc.

The Cubs won't either at this rate. They just couldn't build that type of team overnight. But they certainly won't be this cheap always, so it's kind of moot.

I think he meant the opposite. There is no way the FO was voluntarily this frugal the past few years.

Yeah, this is what I was saying a few posts up. I mean I guess it's possible they were purposely cheap in an effort to make an "all homegrown" team. But I don't really think that is what they preferred. It certainly seems like their hands were tied in that regard.

Losing sucks. I think everyone can agree with that. I, personally, believe it was simply a matter of finances. I have a hard time imagining Theo et al sat on a significant amount of money instead of signing "bigger name" free agents to help the team the past few years (Jackson as the obvious exception - which was of course a bad move). Whether they knew the circumstances coming into the job or not, it seems obvious the FO didn't have the resources to go out and spend a lot of money to help the MLB team while concurrently replenishing the farm system. His early comments of "dual fronts" and "every season is precious" indicate, to me at least, that he would have preferred that method of rebuilding. Maybe they could have added one or two names to make them somewhat more competitive. But, I think the net effect would have been essentially negligible. So, they chose the less desirable route for the short-term for the much brighter outlook in the long-term. If - and hopefully when - many of these upper-level prospects come up and produce, they aren't saddled with any contracts. They'll have the option to add the pieces to build around them soon (or even extend some of the young players as they've done with Rizzo/Castro). The last few years have really sucked to be a Cubs fan. And there will always be people that will disagree whether or not it was "worth it". But, I think everyone can agree that they've done a good job of setting up the franchise for the chance to be extremely competitive for a long, long time.

Solid gold Would you believe Mark Grant came up with the same thing? Probably stole it. LVB! Who's Mark Grant? Is this something super obvious? He's that crazy mf'er that sang the stretch last night and the Padres color guy. Oh. Thanks. WTF Wada ughhhhh

Solid gold Would you believe Mark Grant came up with the same thing? Probably stole it. LVB! Who's Mark Grant? Is this something super obvious?

Valbuena is going to be a [expletive] amazing bench bat over the next few years.

Solid gold

Drop Chris Davis Add Miguel Cabrera Drop Wil Myers Add Albert Pujols

You're not giving yourself enough credit; you've never changed your approach whereas B2B stopped with the insane trade proposals and now just takes shots at the FO. I thought the "crazy trade proposal" guy was SweetSwingingBilly or something like that? Unless it was both. Probably both. RIP He was just sorta a goofy old guy who (IIRC) would call Jim Hendry with suggestions. B2B was always coming up with insane 3 way trades in the Hendry days. Yeah, you're right. Was it the Harden trade that he "called"? As in he posted he called Hendry and told him they needed to trade for him. People called him out on being crazybuckets for calling the GM of a MLB team with suggestions and then the trade was complete in like a few days?

And I do have to give LLF credit because - whether it's deserved or not - he takes a lot of [expletive] and it never phases him.

You're not giving yourself enough credit; you've never changed your approach whereas B2B stopped with the insane trade proposals and now just takes shots at the FO. I thought the "crazy trade proposal" guy was SweetSwingingBilly or something like that? Unless it was both. Probably both.

I've always heard it was around two thirds, but I don't have any sources for that. Just what I've gathered along the way. I assumed the break even point to be between 60-70%, which AA blows away.

I agree and that's my point. I think stolen bases (and especially hit and runs) are a great way to kill a promising inning if you conduct them with the wrong personnel. If Alcantara has an 88% chance to get to second base after he walks to start off an inning, you have to consider it (depending on the situation). And, currently, he wouldn't be the guy that makes you furious 9 times out of 10. He'd be the guy making you happy and safe at second 9 times out of 10.

I'm with you most of the time. However, there is obvious value if it's someone that is highly successful and it's an appropriate situation. Do you honestly think if Al Contra steals bases at an 85-90% rate he should never try?

Just a pet peeve of mine but a single or walk + steal is not at all the same as a double. NOOOO. Well yeah. That was part to illustrate a point and part hyperbole. If the bases are empty the result is the same, though.

Base running is pretty cool when you can essentially turn a single or walk into a double at a 90% clip, as Alcantara has done this year.

Trout had verbally committed to coming to ECU. That would have been fun for a few years.

Agreed. For that matter, I hope he's a plus defensive CF. He's still extremely new to the position but early reports (which, I suppose to me, is just Len) seem to indicate he is taking good routes and *looks* natural in the position. He's certainly athletic enough. That, coupled with his positional offensive value and 40 steals per year potential, is one hell of a player.

Well he did pitch that no-hitter that one time.

I think this aspect of his game is overlooked. He has a career SB rate of 81% and 24-3 sb/cs this year (3-0 with the Chicago Cubs).

Yeah, I agree with like the last 10 posts. Read the post (welcome, by the way) and thought about replying but everything I was going to say has been said. Stanton (or someone similar - though, I'm not sure there is anyone that is conceivably on the trading block), of course, would not upset me in an Al Contra trade. Otherwise, our FO is too smart to trade him for subpar value. I can see him as the Cubs CF and "super utility man" for a long time.