MSG T

It sounds like the value of the contract is what might keep the Cubs from signing Wilson, not the actual cost. I'd be willing to bet that if CJ got what might be considered a reasonable contract, say 5/$90, they'd be willing to go for it, but not at 6-7 years and more money per year. Basically that he wouldn't be worth adding at a longer, more expensive contract. They would probably be willing to do that, everything else being equal, if he were three years younger. It's not just the overall cost of the contract they'll consider, but the value. Even with the posting fee, it appears at the moment that they consider Darvish a better value. Personally, I'd be happy either way, but you can't say that Soriano is keeping them from making those moves, when it looks like they are being given the option to do what it takes to improve both the team and the farm. Now, saying that CJ is or isn't worth that contract is a perfectly valid argument. But it will also depend on other moves the Cubs make that we haven't seen happen yet to tell if he's worth it to the Cubs. It will also have to be looked at 2-3-4 years in the future. Maybe they sign Darvish, trade Soto for a good young pitcher, sign the Cubans and Fielder and win the WS in 2013. Then you could say the made the right move. Maybe they sign Darvish and he falls on his face and CJ wins two Cy Youngs in the next 4 years, that would tell us he might have been worth it. That's what Theo and Jed are getting paid for. To make those decisions and take those risks. And why every one of us reserves the right to either say "I told you so" or complain about the move in two years.

I don't disagree in theory, Dave. But, one Pujols/Fielder-like contract won't keep the Cubs from being able to add another Pujols/Fielder-like contract. They have a much worse contract currently, in terms of performance/value, in Soriano and that won't keep the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder. Now, if they added 3-4 of those contracts in the next year and they all got old, bad, expensive and immoveable all at once, that could prevent signing another big name. I'm not worried about that 5-6 years down the road, though. Theo and Jed have plenty on time to consider those things and work solutions to them. There is very little chance of that happening.

That's what I was wondering too. Maybe the offer was 8 years/$50 mill with $10 mil up front and $5mil per, or something similar.

Are you Carfado's source? Good job throwing the Boston fans off.

WSR, since you're fantasizing here, couldn't you replace DeWitt/LeMahieu with Headley?

Yeah, but he's not going to be good in 2017, which is evidently when Dave wants the Cubs to shoot for being good again. So why keep him when you can trade him for the four best A+ players in someone's system. - Yes, I'm intentionally exaggerating to show a nonsensical point.

Yeah, I know. But, would anyone be missing them if we had Pujols/Fielder + CJ on the team 4 years from now? Well, anyone other than Dave? Given how many prospects actually make it from the draft to the majors, I'm not sure it's much of a hit to the future.

Dave, I don't know if you truly don't get it or if you're being intentionally contrarian, but no one needs to go to one side or the other. The Cubs don't have to do one or the other, they can build for the future AND try to win immediately, and do both without hurting one or the other. They don't have to sacrifice 2015 and on to have a competitive team next season. The also don't have to give up on 2012 to build up their chances for long term success. All of the guys that have been discussed as them possibly acquiring, Darvish, Cespedes, Fielder/Pujols, CJ etc. Are guys that cost them nothing in terms of prospects, and will be around for years, most likely very productive for years. How is that sacrificing the future? Here, we're talking deals for Marmol, Marshall, Soto and Garza. If they do trade one or even all of them, how does making the decision to trade only if they get a ML ready player, along with prospects, hurt them long term? Neither of those hurts them long term. You either can't, or refuse, to see it. You want to limit the argument to the point where there is only one possible answer, and there just isn't one answer, there are many possible answers. You want it black and white and it's not even close to that.

You're trying to frame the argument so that the only right answer supports your own conclusions about how they should go about things. Given your extremely limited, narrow view of the possible deals, yes I'd take the better prospects. That's not the only choice though. Given that there would be many possible packages amongst multiple teams, they'd also have the choice of not trading him unless they got a ML ready player of equal value to all those prospects. That's the choice I'd make in the real world. Unless I already had a deal working to flip some of those prospects for ML ready players.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right? You're also ignoring, evidently intentionally, that the Cubs could, and probably would, counteroffer by asking for a ML ready prospect. I know would make that counteroffer. It's fine to want to get prospects, but when you have the resources the Cubs have, and have already made statements supporting the idea that you won't ignore the present to build for the future, why would you not demand to receive ML ready players? That's the flaw in your question. You are ignoring the present in thinking about the future. Theo and Jed have both said they won't do that.

I gotta say, it shocks me that there are so many folks on this board that think the notion Sveum expresses here is a bunch of nonsense. It's not nonsense, it's just that people put way too much stock in it. Do I want guys hustling? Sure, but I would much rather see them be really good baseball players. Meathead fans act like it's the most important thing, and it isn't. I'm no meatball, but, on the other hand, it's the one thing you can reasonably expect any player to do, so they definitely should be doing it. It should probably piss me off more than it does (which is not much at all) when guys [expletive] up because they're not giving a reasonable semblance of max effort. And that kind of goes to my point. You don't get as mad as you think you should. But, how big of a deal is it if a guy pops up to the 2B and doesn't sprint down the line? Or hits a weak grounder to the pitcher and does the same? It's just not as big of a deal as a guy not running full speed on a pass route if he's not the primary receiver or something of the like. I get being ticked if a guy hits a long fly ball that you're not sure is going out, and ends up with a single instead of a double. But being ticked because a guy doesn't go full speed on a certain out is kind of silly. He won't be any less out if he sprints out that pop fly.

NAME 1 Making sure the clubhouse fridge stays clear of leftovers. Is Prince still a vegetarian, or vegan, or whatever? Or did he give up on that? That could make a difference in how vulnerable leftovers are.

I gotta say, it shocks me that there are so many folks on this board that think the notion Sveum expresses here is a bunch of nonsense. It's not nonsense, it's just that people put way too much stock in it. Do I want guys hustling? Sure, but I would much rather see them be really good baseball players. Meathead fans act like it's the most important thing, and it isn't.

The most important aspect of defensive positioning? Facing the batter as the pitch is delivered. We need to cut Darwin Barney Agreed, the little [expletive] doesn't play the game the right way.

Very well done Tim. I liked the item about Braun not entering the league as a selective hitter, but becoming one under Sveum. I sincerely hope that something similar to that can happen with Castro, Vitters, Castillo, Jackson. We need to make "Own the Zone" into the kind of gimmicky song that Cubs fans seem to love. If Swame can turn Jackson into a selective hitter then he deserves HOF ??? I could see the other three, but Jackson? He's had much better walk rates than the others. He does strike out more than I'd like, but he walks a bunch also. It's not like he has Vitters' 3:1 K:BB ratio. I'm not saying he doesn't have work to do, just he's not the one I'd pick out of the listed group. I would say Sveum deserves the HoF if he makes Vitters into a selective hitter.

Obviously what Wilson's production over the next 5-6 years will be is more relevant than what it has been for the last 2. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to wager that most folks don't anticipate he'll be amongst baseball's ten best players going forward. Maybe not, but I'd be willing to wager that over the next 3-4 years he's still one of the 20 best, or so, and that still puts him squarely in #1 pitcher territory. I wouldn't argue if someone claims he's bound to drop off some. But, from where he currently is, even a slight drop off is still really good.

NO NOT THAT, ANYTHING BUT THAT I dont think any Cubs fans would care either way. Had the Cards hired him, some of the meatier would have had a fit, but I don't think that your average Cubs fan really has any idea about the ongoing Theo drama between the two teams. I think you underestimate the meatheadedness of a significant chunk of Cub (really any team's) fans.

Yeah, not sure why you'd consider a guy, who since becoming a starter has the 9th highest WAR in baseball, a #1. Doesn't make much sense.

I was just going to ask if it was OK to start talking about Sandberg again, since we know he's not the manager.

svoom Suh-VEE-um ??? Not sure if serious.

I wouldn't do a straight trade, it would take some significant money coming back to convince me to do it. I think over the next 3 year of Soriano's contract that Crawford will be a much better player, but the last 2-3 years of his contract scares me as much as the last 3 years of Soriano's has scared me since the day he signed. If they kicked in most of his last three years, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Half and I'd think about it. If they wanted the Cubs to pick up most of it, I'd tell them to pound sand.

This idea is intriguing. Especially since Theo knows the Red Sox inside out, perhaps this would be a possible destination for Garza, Marmol, or Marshall. Unless he robs them blind, they'd better not get Garza.

Evidently Buehrle's agent has had multiple talks with the Cubs regarding signing with them. Why wouldn't he tell his agent to not even answer the phone if the Cubs call since he hates them and Wrigley so much?

Wait, who are the guys before him that pulled out of the race? Francona? That may be who CubsDen was referring to, but it looks pretty clear that he was eliminated from contention prior to pulling his name out.

While I agree with your sentiment I disagree with your logical inference. Maybe they weren't opposed to him interviewing, but when it comes time to accept the actual move they'd flinch. Maybe he wanted to interview to see if he was blown away, but he wasn't. There's a few reasons why simply interviewing does not guarantee family issues won't keep him away. Exactly. His family may have said "we're not interested in going to Boston at all" and "we'd be interested in Chicago, but only under certain circumstances, so you might as well go see if they are offering something close to that". Once the interview is over, they then see if what the Cubs (and Chicago itself) are offering is close to what they want. If it's close, they may want to take some time considering it before making a decision. It could also be that an official offer hasn't been made, but that they've alluded to them one's coming to give them a chance to think it over now.