questionmarkgrace

Losing out on him sucks but its worse when you realize that there arent any other theo acquisitions out there. Losing out on 5 of 6 free agents is pretty darn horrible. I dont take solace in us being the bridesmaid it only means that we were close enough to sign him but didnt do enough to make it happen. I thought theo was extremely arrogant for thinking he could do this to begin with and nothing has changed. Its hard enough to get star studded teams to make it to the playoffs. Now we are completely dependent upon our prospects all panning out which is crazy. And even then we still wont have pitching

its not looking good for 2014 right now. We need major changes to be anywhere close to .500 next year. i will be shocked if this team doesnt lose a hundred games this year, in spite of a what appears to be a pretty solid rotation. I dont see the defense getting all that much better. We are still going to see mental errors with a core of young players. the bullpen has 6 or 7 blown saves already. Maybe its bad luck but maybe not. Weve got a strange mix of washed up relievers(camp gregg loe marmol) and young or inexperienced ones (bowden, rondon). Both likely to be very inconsistent. On offense, we have one of the lowest team obps and runs scored. Rizzo has been brutal outside of the tape measure shots. leftys kill us. Im pretty sure we are going to struggle to score runs all year.

did anyone see how much money Hunter Pence got? 13.8 mil in arb holy crap!

Bourns advanced metrics are much more impressive than his game is to the naked eye. No hes not worth a $100 mil as boras floated earlier this year. That said hed be a good addition and fills a legitimate hole one the team. I know others are more interested in rebuilding but spending money at a position where we dont have any prospects that are close or all that talented is in theospeak asset building. Its not like we can out spend in the draft or with ifa's anymore. So why not put a decent team on the field and continue to build the farm? We wouldnt have experienced such variation year to year had hendry and company actually drafted and signed players that could do more than win a homerun contest or throw hard.

With the nats trading for denard span word is Mike morse will be traded. Seems like a guy who could play third for us. He came up as a short stop to begin with so it doesnt seem like too far of a stretch

If we are going the Ian Stewart route I would love to see the cubs sign one possibly two minor league free agents to push him. Vitters obviously needs seasoning and I dont think that Junior Lake is ready to make the jump from AA just yet. So whats wrong with signing another formerly high regarded top prospect? Josh Bell comes to mind.

And I think you have to be looking for reasons not to complain to say there's nothing wrong with paying that much for a completely, utterly fungible, replacement-level player. The extra $1 million will not hold them back from doing anything they want to do in the future. It won't keep them from signing any major league player or an amateur guy. Complaining about this price tag is looking for something to complain about. If you want to complain about the player, fine, but his cost will affect zero moves in the future. It is not your worry. But its a bad move and thats the point. You cant spout off about acquiring assets, utilizing funds better, and making moves for the future when you waste money on a player you dont need. Yeah its only 1.75mil but its moves like this one, resigning reed johnson, baker, etc. They add up to the amount that we could have paid a decent player at a position of need such as third base, pitcher, reliever, etc.

I just dont get it. Why sign a guy like navarro when there are solid enough in house candidates and the upgrade is marginal at best? And with so many other holes to fill it really seems like a waste. When theo talks about acquiring assets and trying to make the team better the right way while not overspending for talents moves like these make you wonder what is going on. The only thing i could think is maybe garza had a good repor with him while with the rays?

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road. 2012 was the lowest cubs attendance in ten years. It will lower again if the cubs dont make any legitimate improvements at the major league level.

I agree with the op. there is no reason they cant rebuild and field a decent team. This is true now more than ever because with the new rules capping international spending and draft spending its not like we can take money slotted for the major league team and restock the farm quickly in 1-2 years.

The [expletive] it doesn't. Holy [expletive], do you really believe this? No [expletive]. Nobody is saying it turn out to be a mistake to wait to try and force a better deal at the deadline. It's hardly something crippling or some kind of humiliating failure, and it's not like they still won't likely get a good return for him. Are you really THAT bothered by this? There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. It was barely brought up before, and there was seemingly no progress before it went down, so, ooooh, huge changes on the project that will get done regardless because we're talking about a hugely valuable asset for the city. Oh, and it was brought up...by Rahm, when he said after the fact it wouldn't impact things. So I guess you only believe certain things he says when it's convenient to make you feel more sad and cranky over the Cubs. But yeah, this was really embarrassing, because there's a score kept over those things, I guess. How would we get a better return for garza now, when he is less of an asset because of the injury and the less years of control than last year? It wont happen. Why am I concerned with this? Have you seen our AAA, AA, and High A teams? If we arent spending in free agency and we dont have other chips to trade how does this team get better at all in the short term? Garza was our shot at major league ready pitching prospects. Now we will get considerably less barring an incredible stretch by Garza. Multiple media outlets were reporting that the blue jays had actually won the bidding for Darvish shortly before the rangers were announced. Toronto newspapers were reporting a bid in the $50 mil range amongst others. Buster olney is an idiot and his one crappy article doesnt trump multiple others to the contrary. I dont see how its convenient for me that the articles before the joe ricketts bs came out that everything was positive and there was a purported plan. And afterwards nothing but negativity and no plan? It seems rather clear not sure why you want to spin it any other way. These things are embarrassing because the cubs cant seem to get out of their own way on several fronts. I dont think we have made any progress this year beyond the draft and soler and that was a given with or without Hendry. And I was one of the people saying this will be a 4-5 year transformation before we see a .500 team. Unfortunately Ive seen very little growth and more of the same spinning wheels.

Because the Cubs don't run an organization staffed by robots where you can simply switch off their voice circuits or whatever the [expletive] you want; leaks happen all the damn time when it comes to sports deals. The stick in the spokes was Dempster being relatively unusually stubborn about the whole thing. And yet there's still an excellent chance he will be an in demand player they can get an excellent return for. It's hardly like that was their only shot to get a good return for Matt Garza. Reportedly nobody was in the Ranger's ballpark. Or state. How were they "in a panic?" The press broke the story, then reported that Rahm was being Rahm and the Ricketts who actually run the team denied having anything to do with it. Then the story died and anyone who isn't a mutant sack of meatballs realized there was nothing there. 1) this stuff doesnt happen with other teams though. When theo was with the Red Sox leaks were very rare and they never killed a deal. 2) Not it was the cubs best shot to get the best return for Garza. Dont forget now he is a rental player at the trade deadline. He wont garner what he would have with a years control remaining. 3) No, the blue jays were reportedly right with the rangers in bidding for Darvish. and it was widely reported that the amount would be very close to what it took to get Dice-k. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/21/runner-up-blue-jays-bid-more-than-50-million-for-yu-darvish/ 4)It wasnt Rahm being Rahm. Each one of the Rickets children came out with their own press release condemning Joe Rickets statements at the time. And literally every article on the subject stated that it would hurt relations and 6 months later whatever plan Rahm did have hasnt even been brought up since.

Yeah, they totally didn't trade Garza because it didn't have anything to do with the a season ending injury or anything. It was foolish and risky not to trade Garza in the spring, when his value was at its logical peak. But that's a whole other story for a whole other thread. This. And the fact that he got hurt a week before the trade deadline. You cant let that happen. There was too much risk in holding him that long and too much interest in him not to trade him before then.

Think he's talking about Joe Ricketts Super PAC against Obama when the Cubs were negotiating with Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel about a Wrigley renovation deal. I know what he was talking about; he's presenting it like the Cubs had some deal lined up and then Joe's political ties squashed the whole thing. That didn't happen. The Cubs were seemingly nowhere closer to getting a deal with the city than they were before that came to light; it was just political gossip fodder that didn't do much of anything to change the limbo status of the Cubs vs. Chicago. one month before Joe Ricketts flapped his mouth everything seemed positive and seemed to be gaining steam: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8622523 after Rahm is "livid" and "not returning calls:" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/rahm-emanuel-joe-ricketts-jeremiah-wright_n_1525541.html Rahm's comments in the first story were just lip service; Daley talked plenty over the years about how much Wrigley meant to the city and they wanted to support it and blah-blah-blah. There's nothing in that article that indicates things were any closer than the talk we've heard before and since. I also don't care how pissy he was over Joe; that's what Emanuel does because he's a troll. Wrigley is literally falling down and the city isn't going to let it fall apart. Everything right now is posturing, but it's not going to not happen because Joe Ricketts is a hardcore Republican. That's not how these things work. So what? Like I said, deals fall apart all the team. Teams have info announced that turns out to be incorrect all the time. How is any of this embarrassing? Missing out on Cespedes was the only mistake you've listed, and it's hardly embarrassing. Dempster [expletive] the deal up himself, the Rangers blew everyone else's bid out of the water and Garza got hurt. So what? How is that an embarrassing "blunder?" This isn't the "status quo," either in the sense of how things usually go or being relative with how the Cubs have been run in the past. Your entire thesis is petulant. according to rosenthal after agreeing to the trade in principle of marmol for haren the cubs pulled the deal off the table last minute. Its on roto and twitter. Reneging on trades with other teams probably decreases the likelyhood that we can trade with them in the near future. We've already pissed off the dodgers with Dempster listening in on trade conversations and the braves by seeming to have jumped the gun before dempster approved the deal. As far as wrigley renovations go there was plenty of positive press like the example above. Rahm was outlining a "plan" as detailed in the first article. After Joe Ricketts it all went negative and since then there has been very little talk about it. Not a coincidence, nor lipservice, nor posturing. Im not saying it killed the deal, yes it will get done but it looks bad and certainly delayed it.

The Dempster "gaff" was on Dempster being an [expletive], not on the organization. Failing to trade Garza? How do you know what was being offered? Dont you think they should have told dempster and marmol not to discuss anything until it was final? Maybe they did however, in dempsters case iirc they told him he was likely to be traded the next day and would have time to approve a deal or not. Then the media got wind of it and he was like there is no trade and the Braves were miffed. Then the dodgers got pissed because Dempster was supposedly in on the gm conversations unbeknownst to Ned Colletti. As far as Garza being traded I dont know the offers there were plenty of rumors going round and he had plenty of suitors. We would have gotten a lot more back then we did for dempster because he had another full year of control.