MSG T

I'd go close to that. You'd still end up paying that much, or more, over ten years, so if he'd give it serious consideration? Yeah, I'd at least go close. Then you're off the hook in 6 years rather than 10.

I think they are serious when they say that their primary plan is to develop a long-term winner based on scouting and drafting. If they don't get Fielder or Pujols at a price they are happy with, I think they are more than happy to see what they can do with the DeJesuses of the world for a few years. Sooooo what are they going to do with all that money that can no longer go into the draft and apparently isn't going to go into major league payroll? CJ Wilson? Nah, that 6-7 year contract is all about winning now and the Cubs are in it for the long haul, not the now.

I think they are serious when they say that their primary plan is to develop a long-term winner based on scouting and drafting. If they don't get Fielder or Pujols at a price they are happy with, I think they are more than happy to see what they can do with the DeJesuses of the world for a few years. I think they were just as serious in wanting to not give up a chance to win now.

Be really good but not have the faintest idea why?

Well, he would be better than LaHair.

Wouldn't that be cause for voiding at least part of his contract, if they wanted?

Think about that for a sec, Dave.

Yeah, lets take the guy that's gotten worse each year and is older than one of the two big names on the market. Good call, Paul.

Does his arm come separately now? Doesn't Dusty still have it in a closet somewhere?

But that was facing the awesome Cubs' pitching staff. LOL He could be the opposite of Jeff Blauser. Yeah, I hate that argument. WSR's is the opposite of the one that popped up all the time in the 80's and 90's when people wanted so and so because they had a .356 BA at Wrigley and was at .270 overall. Let's see, .356 against a crappy Cubs staff, let's get him! Though regarding Jones, I wouldn't mind him as a platoon partner for the right price. He's been decent the last couple of years and if you aren't counting on 150+ games of .850+ OPS, he wouldn't be a bad choice for the right price. Not for long term, though. 1 year w/option for 2nd year max.

Eventually, some writer was bound to express such sentiments in a newspaper column. Who knew it would be Rick Morrissey? Did Bruce (Miles) hack Morrisey's account and ghost write for him?

Thanks.

I didn't think this was big enough for it's own thread, but this was linked from Bleacher Nation. Chris Capuano? Good xFIP the last couple of years, but nowhere near the actual results. It's Wittenmeyer, so, you know... http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/9164009-573/dejesus-fits-cubs-mold.html

Jackson, like Rhee and Antigua are virtually untradeable before the Rule 5 but otherwise it would be a good deal. I wonder if they'd consider Casey Coleman or Alberto Cabrera. McNutts out of the question and I'd prefer not move Struck for him. I don't think any of the Rule 5 guys are untradeable prior to the draft. If you select a Rule 5 guy in the draft, you have to save a 40 man roster spot for him and you have to keep him on the 25 man roster all year. However, if you trade for him prior to the draft, you can keep him in the minors, let him develop some more, and have complete control over him. There's a lot of value there. That's what I originally thought, but in another thread somebody said that if a Rule 5 eligible player is traded prior to the draft, the same rules apply and you can't add anyone else to the 40 man before then even if they are traded. Unless I misunderstood. That was me. If teams could do that, it would completely defeat the purpose of the Rule 5 draft. The Rule 5 draft is held each December at the Winter Meetings, and it consists of a Major League portion and a minor league portion. By November 20, each club must set its 40-man roster and submit reserve lists for all major and minor-league levels (See Minor League Rosters). Between November 20 and the Rule 5 draft, a club may add Major League free agents to its 40-man roster but may not add any player from its minor league reserve lists. Link please. Not calling you out, I'd just like to read the rules about it.

He had a higher WAR than any Cub OF last season. He may suck, but he's still an improvement over last season. his war is only that high if you accept that his defense is worth a win and a half. hopefully it is. I'll grant you that, but he also had a wOBA nearly as high as Byrd and Soriano. Which was the lowest of his career, by far, and was it a coincidence it happened after moving to a pitcher friendly park. He may not move back to the .363 wOBA he had the year before, but I'd think he gets back close to his career norm, which is .339.

It could very well just be me getting caught up in the moment, but if I had to put money on it, I'd bet neither Byrd nor Soriano start the season with the Cubs.

He had a higher WAR than any Cub OF last season. He may suck, but he's still an improvement over last season.

Same-old same-old, but a little different source, though the Cubs mention is via ESPN. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/11/prince-fielder-albert-pujols-cubs-mariners-interest/1?loc=interstitialskip

Don't take this as a sign I'd give up a lot for him, cause I'd want it to be a cheaper acquisition, but... It's not like Stewart has been a regular starter for his 5 years. His PA's have been 46, 304, 491, 441 and 136 starting with 2007, over the same 5 year period he also racked up almost 1000 MiL PA's. It's not like he was racking up 5 500 PA seasons in COL while Wood was playing a few days here and there while getting sent down constantly. He definitely has more ML experience than Wood, but he also only has two season where he played over half the games and one where he played exactly half. I'd just like to know what happened to Stewart in 2011. Some of his numbers are similar to the rest of his career, but his LD% and BABIP fell off a cliff. What caused it? If he could get back to a 1.5-2.0 WAR player, he'd be cheap and useful.

If the Cubs are able to sign Fielder/Pujols, I fully agree. If they missed on both, I wouldn't mind taking that chance near as much. Granted the WS most likely wouldn't, but from a Cubs perspective, Dunn is much more likely to rebound into usefulness than Soriano.

I don't have any qualms about Jed/Theo trading Garza. They would force a team to overpay or at minimum give them exactly what they want in return, which would undoubtedly be something really good. Basically, no offense CE, but they wouldn't trade him for Wright. They'd either rob a team blind or not trade him.

Exactly. If someone gets stupid, you bow out, but to not even try doesn't make any sense.

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years. You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning. Why is it so hard for folks to get their heads around what it is I'm saying? I'm not against signing any/all elite free agents. But these two seem like bad bets to me -- not just for the the Cubs but for any team. I expect that for a large portion of their contract, they're going to be paid far above the value of their production. That's not universally true of *all* elite free agents. These two guys simply have risk profiles that are especially high. The fact that the Cubs are not well positioned (IMO) to capitalize on the most productive early years of the deal only exacerbates the problem. It isn't the main problem, though. Ignoring Fielder for a moment, isn't Pujols the very definition of elite? You don't get any more elite than one of the 5-10 greatest hitters ever, unless you're talking Bonds immediately pre-steroids.

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years. To go along with this, there's also no reason the Cubs can't make a significant turnaround next season. Since 2000, every team in baseball, except for Baltimore, has had at least one season where they improved at least 10 games from the previous season. Most, something like 26 or 27, had multiple seasons of doing that, including the Cubs doing that 3 different times. Hell, there were a number of 20+ and 30+ game improvements from one season to the next. There were many reasons for it, also. Some were young teams that got experience, some were injury prone one year and not the next, some were unlucky one year and lucky the next and some made proper moves that fixed problems with the team. My point is, there is no reason for the Cubs to not turn around next season. Asking for a 90+ win team next year may not be reasonable, though turnarounds bigger than 19 games happen, but to think there is no way they can finish over .500 and be in the hunt (keeping interest, and more importantly profits, up) until the last few games is defeatist. It's just not that unreasonable, or unthinkable, for them to win 81-83 games next season. Then another similar improvement the following season puts them squarely in the playoff hunt. Signing a big bat, such as Fielder/Pujols, and adding a good/great arm or two can do just that. Doing so will not hurt the Cubs long-term prospects for success, it will not hurt their chances of signing some un-named possible FA 6 years from now and it won't hurt the Cubs ability to build their system up through the draft and Int'l FA.

The other people can correct me if I'm wrong here, but Dave, I couldn't care less of the Cubs overpay Pujols/Fielder the last 2-3 years of the contract if... - They are really good to elite (a high possibility for both) for the first 5-7 years. - The Cubs are consistent playoff teams during that time. - The Cubs make other moves to help with the second point. Those three things are NOT mutually exclusive. The can sign either of them and still have more money than all but 4-5 other teams left over to build a team around them. What is so hard about this? I don't think obtuse is necessarily the right word, but it does seem you're being intentionally contrarian.