CubColtPacer

Nonsense. If in 3 years the Cubs have a good team out that looks to be in it for the long haul it's not a failure. My gripe is the potential awfulness we have to witness to get to that point if they're trying to do it on the cheap. theo wouldn't be a failure under those circumstances, but we'd be giving him an awful low bar to hop over. i mean, how many guys have gotten a chance to do things that way? to have easily top-5 resources in the league, but don't worry about losing 100 games over and over while you rebuild for three straight seasons? Hey, I'm totally agreed. Bottoming out intentionally to fulfill this asinine notion of building teams "the right way" seems like a waste of time. It's one thing if the money isn't there; it's another if they're just not using it. They're almost certainly using it one way or the other. The question is if they are using it on major league payroll or not. I doubt that Theo is just going to leave 30 million of his budget unspent.

As a buddy noted on twitter recently, CJ Wilson moved to the rotation at about the age Marshall is now. Has Wilson ever have the arm troubles Marshall has had? Plus Wilson was never quite as dominant as a reliever as Marshall is. Usually a starter is more valuable than a reliever, but Marshall is so elite in the bullpen that he'd have to be a really good starter to be more valuable there. The likelihood that he would be IMO is not worth risking it. 200 innings of completely league average pitching would equal his value from last year, and he was the 3rd most valuable reliever in baseball. The smart move would have been to sign him last year at good reliever rates and try to convert him. He's not going to get to 200 innings anytime soon. Also, I assume that would equal the same WAR? Tell me if that's wrong. If so, that doesn't take into account roster spot/playing time/positional scarcity. It's easier to find players that can give you average starting innings then one who can be a reliever as dominant as Marshall. Especially for a big market team like the Cubs, it doesn't make sense to turn an elite player into an average one because they can go out and find other starting pitchers with their money that can be average to pair with their elite reliever.

I tend to agree with this, but you have to be realistic and admit they are going to suck for a long time if they do this. 2012 and 2013 will be lost. 2012 is definitely lost. 2013 would depend on how well some of the young players play. If they find another piece or two of the core during 2012 and then spend a lot in free agency before 2013, they could very well compete. If all the young acquired players flop and they still have this many holes to fill next offseason, they're sunk. But if they don't make a major upgrade this offseason, they're in that position in 2013 whether they trade those players or not. At least with completely punting 2012 they'd have a chance to find some players to fill those 2013 holes.

As a buddy noted on twitter recently, CJ Wilson moved to the rotation at about the age Marshall is now. Has Wilson ever have the arm troubles Marshall has had? Plus Wilson was never quite as dominant as a reliever as Marshall is. Usually a starter is more valuable than a reliever, but Marshall is so elite in the bullpen that he'd have to be a really good starter to be more valuable there. The likelihood that he would be IMO is not worth risking it.

Did you even attempt to read? I'm sorry, I think you're going to have to explain this "witty" response. Your nonsensical statement about replacing this average group in no way shape or form addresses the issue being discussed. The point is not to replace what is here, the point is to get better. If the first step you take toward getting better is getting a lot worse, it's going to take longer to get better. Half of those good parts he mentioned are likely to be gone after next year anyway (Dempster, Byrd, Marshall, Zambrano). The only pieces he's taking off the team that would be a decent part of the team in 2-3 years are Garza, Soto, and Marmol. So really he's mostly just punting 2012 and not the years after that. The Cubs best plan was probably to make a huge effort to compete in 2012. If they are not planning on making some major upgrades, punting 2012 and acquiring lots of assets might be the best way to go rather than wasting the last year of several of your assets. Let's say they don't even do a full rebuild and don't trade Garza, Soto, and Marmol. Trading Dempster, Marshall, Byrd, and Z gives you a better chance of competing in 2013 than holding on to them does. And if you find a good deal for one of the other 3 that fills some holes, then you have to consider that as well.

almost certainly assisted by his 24% ld% Well sure, but that's part of why minor league BABIPs tend to be higher than in the majors. He almost certainly won't be able to make that solid of contact against major league pitching.

Agreed, but I threw that in there to say-if that's what other teams were thinking back in 2010 when they had very little reason to, what are they thinking after his 2011 where he has warning signs popping up in a lot of his numbers? Then you keep him. Oh, definitely. I was discussing why teams might not be biting on him even at that level. But I wouldn't have offered to pay quite that much to give him up, and if teams aren't willing to pay even 20% of his contract you have to keep him.

Agreed, but I threw that in there to say-if that's what other teams were thinking back in 2010 when they had very little reason to, what are they thinking after his 2011 where he has warning signs popping up in a lot of his numbers?

If you think he can probably pitch several more years in baseball and be decent, but without a lot of upside, then you are refuting your insinuation that there is a surplus of pitchers like Zambrano. Maybe overstated it a little, but pitchers with where I think Z's ability level is at this point sign 1 year deals all the time. There are options out there for teams.

Oh come on. "A lot"? Everybody in baseball continues to say how little pitching there is out there. Guys are getting paid millions just for the ability to not be horrible. If anything, I think the rest of baseball might be scared off by the Cubs drama queen way of handling him, instead of the proper Theo way of "shut the hell up about your internal issues". The Cubs have routinely talked down their "cancers" while in the process of giving them away, and that's what people are hoping to happen again. Well, I am a little more down that Z on most. I think his arm is mostly fried at this point. His peripherals and how hittable he was last year scare me. I still remember the comments from the 2010 trade deadline how opposing teams were quoted (off the record) that they felt he was no more than a 5th starter at that point which confused many of us at the time. And I don't think MLB teams value a pitcher's contribution at the plate like they should, which is the main thing that Z offers at this point besides possibly being an innings eater. He can probably pitch several more years in baseball and be decent, but his upside is just about gone. As Kyle mentioned, if other teams think Z is a bargain at this point but are waiting to see if the Cubs go down further than they're crazy. If a team values Z at 7-10 million and he's being offered to them at 3.6, are they really going to wait to see if his price comes down to 2.5 and risk someone else taking him? Unless they somehow know that every other team in the league doesn't like him, that doesn't seem to be a very smart strategy.

This. I figure there are two options. 1) It's not really true. 2) Zambrano really did do something truly heinous that the Cubs kept under wraps in the media but somehow all of MLB knows about. I can't think of what that would be. I'm going with 1. I just think there are lots of pitchers out there like Z at this point and most of them don't have his baggage. So teams are exploring other options and some of them might have Z as a fallback plan. I was a little surprised at 80% though-I would think the Cubs could have gotten a team to bite at the 5 million mark.

Why would they care about his strikeout issues? He's pretty consistently had an ISOd of .100. His worst at any level was .078 in 15 PAs in rookie league ball where he still had an OBP of .533. I'm not saying his strikeout rates should be ignored, but his walk rate should also be considered. I realize it isn't a direct translation but his MiL BB/K ratio is almost identical to Aramis' ML BB/K ratio. As I've said in other threads, there are quite a few hitters in the Cubs system that I worry about when it comes to strikeouts, patience and pitch recognition and Jackson isn't one of them. The fact that he strikes out that much in the minors might mean that his swing can be exploited and that his numbers won't translate well to the majors. His strikeout rate is already dangerously high and most players rates go up when they hit the majors. He still had a strong season last season because he had a .358 BABIP. That isn't likely to continue in the majors. I still have high hopes for Jackson, but that is a huge red flag.

It looks like the Pacers roster is probably done without adding another shooting guard at this point. It would have been nice, but it wasn't really necessary. The Pacers look like they are going ahead with starting Paul George at SG who has grown 2 inches since the Chicago series and is now 6 foot 10. Whether he can still guard players like Rose at that height will be interesting to see.

There's been talk, but mostly from reporters who weren't referencing sources. All we know for sure is that Ricketts has stated that the baseball budget will be about the same as last year because the revenues were about the same. But he is going to give Theo that number and let him decide how to divide it between all the different areas Theo is in charge of.

The fact that the baseball budget will remain the same and it appears we can't spend as much on IFA or the draft would seem to suggest so. If the baseball budget is staying the same and we can't spend as much on the draft or IFA, that would indicate to me that the ML payroll would be able to be increased by the $8-10M that isn't being spent there. It depends on if executive salaries, training staffs, coaches, other minor league staff, scout salaries, and maybe even some equipment to upgrade scouting are recorded in the baseball budget. All of that is under Theo's control and therefore quite possibly under his budget. And he wants to upgrade most of those areas and that's going to cost money. Wrigley upgrades/Triangle building/McDonalds acquisition/other things like that are not under Theo's control and shouldn't be part of the baseball budget.

The major league payroll was between 130 and 140 last year (it's hard to pin down much more than that without knowing how players like Pena, Silva, and the trades done throughout the season were accounted for).

The fact that the baseball budget will remain the same and it appears we can't spend as much on IFA or the draft would seem to suggest so. Are player salaries the only thing in the baseball budget though? If you have a major league budget number, that's one thing. A baseball budget could include any number of things and is probably accounted differently from team to team.

This article says it's not until after 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/baseball/yu-darvish-situation-puts-spotlight-on-japanese-player-posting-system.html

I thought we were officially paid off on Bradley/Silva. Silva had a option with a buyout this year. It's hard to say if the Cubs absorbed that when they cut him last year or if they were planning to split it in their accounting like the original contract had it.

Eh? So it's no longer CBS gets the AFC road games and FOX gets the NFC road games? It could have something to do with flex scheduling. A couple weeks ago CBS was convinced to give a Denver game up to Fox because the Sunday night game (New England/Indy) was returned to CBS and a Fox game (Detroit/New Orleans) was put in its place. That left the schedule unbalanced so the Denver game was moved. Then apparently the league wanted to flex Denver/New England to Sunday night this week and CBS threw a fit because they felt they've lost too many Denver games already.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/14/obsessive-prince-fielder-watch-another-national-pundit-knows-the-cubs-are-in-on-fielder/ Unless we put some enormous bid on the Darvish posting (so enormous that they're basically sure they're going to get it), I don't understand how we wouldn't have the money. I think the bolded might be the most important sentence. If the Cubs are over 100 million already (which almost has to count Pena's salary otherwise I don't see how they are that high already) then they probably have about 30 million left. And if they feel they have a lot of other spots to fill, they don't think they can commit 20-25 of that 30 million to Fielder. Could the report be erroneous? Absolutely. But it makes logical sense if those 2 assumptions (where the payroll is now and how many spots the organization wants to fill) are true. They have the money for Fielder, but if they commit to him he would take up most of the remaining budget.

I think people are just saying the root cause is not enough cheap talent. That forced the Cubs to fill most all of their holes through free agency. They did rather well in free agency overall, but you have to be nearly perfect in free agency even with a large market to build an entire team and they weren't perfect. The large contracts prevented them from improving the team, but they were more of a symptom of the real cause for the problems of the team.

Ramirez thought he could do better than 1 year and 16 million in free agency. He got 2/20 with an option for 3/32, so I guess he was right? the mutual option is for a 4th year. he got 3 for 32 with a mutual option for a 4th year that doesn't appear to be disclosed, but if it's declined by the team he gets an additional $4M It's probably incentive driven, like a certain number of games played in the last two years of the deal. It doesn't appear to be a vesting option. It's a mutual option. It's just that the amount of that option hasn't been disclosed (but it probably has to be at least 10 million and probably closer to 12).

To be fair, I'm not sure the Cubs wanted him to pick up his option. They could have easily just been capitalizing on the fact that they knew he wanted a multi-year deal. By making Aramis decline both his option and arbitration, they saved 2 million and picked up a draft pick.

Probably not, in part because our douchebag color commentator was allowed to launch on him constantly and no one from the front office bothered to call him out on it. and also in part because the first thing our new gm did was pass on his option and, at least to all outward appearances, make no effort whatsoever to even talk to him about coming back. it's certainly possible that we considered bringing aramis back and it never leaked and his agent was too lazy to mention it an effort to up his value, but it looks more like we weren't interested in aramis at any price. and at this price, i think that was a mistake. if hendry were here, we'd all be talking about how he was infatuated with stewart and stupidly wanted to trust his scouts and find a diamond in the rough instead of just spending a very reasonable sum of money on a player who has actually had good and great seasons. but i suppose such apocrypha are only to used to describe the inner workings of front offices we don't have cute nicknames for. The first thing the Cubs did was pick up his option. Aramis was the one who declined his half.