Backtobanks

The pitching won't be worse because the guys we were throwing out there last year were #6, #7, & #8 quality starters. Maholm, Wood, Volstad, Wells, and Samardzija are at least #5 starters on most teams and maybe #4, but we are putting them at #3-#5. What sort of numbers would you expect out of a #3 starter? Edit: I somewhat agree with you, but only in the current depressed offensive environment, and one of them will likely be good enough to be a #3 (but it's impossible to tell which one right now). Of course that same bad offensive environment will help the Cubs lineup to not be as horrific as it would have been in the middle of the decade. Contrary to what Ricketts is saying, this team is rebuilding. I'm sure they're hoping to have Wells and Maholm show enough to make them trade bait at some point. I would think developing Wood, Volstad, Samardzija, McNutt, etc. into solid BOR starters for next year while adding a FOR starter is the plan for next year. They would still have to add a MOR guy to be serious about possibly contending next year.

The pitching won't be worse because the guys we were throwing out there last year were #6, #7, & #8 quality starters. Maholm, Wood, Volstad, Wells, and Samardzija are at least #5 starters on most teams and maybe #4, but we are putting them at #3-#5.

I don't think it will be, actually. While the offense will almost certainly be worse than it was last year, the pitching will almost certainly be vastly improved over last year. Replacing the mess we had in the 4-5 slots of the rotation with consistency (even if it's average consistency) will give us a big boost. I'll be surprised if this team isn't right around the win total of last year's team. I might agree on "right around the win total of last year's team", but improving on the win total is something else. Also, I agree with the word "consistency", but I'm not sure about "average consistency". Maholm, Wood, Wells, Volstad, and Samardzija are an improvement, but none of them have shown anything better than #5 stuff.

I think it's going to be hard to improve on last year's record because of the anemic offense. Our pitching might be okay, but I don't see them holding other teams to 1-3 runs to give the offense a chance to outscore the opponents.

I don't hate this, relatively speaking. I love 1-2. Like 6-7, especially if we can at least strike silver wit Stewart. If we could get a lefty platoon mate for Soriano, I'd like 5 a lot more. 8-whatever. It's the 3-4 which are an eye sore. Garza-Demp-Maholm-Wood-Volstad could end up a formiddable rotation if the stars align and all goes our way. Same goes for the lineup, with DeJesus, LaHair, Soriano, Soto, and Stewart all huge ?s. We could hover around .500 and in July trade for some guy we never even thought about in the offseason. Add the right amount sugar, and Kool-Aid is a wonderful beverage. I would avoid that Kool-Aid that has a 2012 on it because it needs way to much sugar to sweeten it.

All signs seem to point to him being cashed, but he would be a very high reward reclamation project, and the type of target that Theo would go after. The Cubs haven't been linked to him, but there are 5 mystery teams. I'd take a look at Kazmir over scrap heap depth chart fodder like Robertson or Lopez any day of the week. He's got a shredded shoulder, is throwing 86-89 and can't throw strikes. His upside is now LOOGY. So you agree that he's better than Robertson and Lopez. :lol:

Put up a 40-ft. Cubbie Blue monster in LF (something else we took from the Red Sox).

He was the guy with the towel. :lol:

Yeah, Jed's already said that was the plan. Yeah, you have to give Lahair a chance to see if he can hit at the ML level. If he can he becomes a decent pinch hitter/backup 1B-OF.

Knowing the Cubs luck, your scenario happens and Soler is sent to the Red Sox as compensation for Theo.

If you look at numbers, the only real advantage Volstad has over Wells is age. So if you look at numbers, Volstad has the advantage in age. If you look at scouting and pedigree, Volstad has all the other advantages as well. What exactly is Wells' advantage? Wells' advantages are in ERA+, K/BB, WHIP, K/IP, BB/IP, etc. Volstad's advantages are age and size. Again my original point was that Volstad and Wells will be fighting for the 5th spot in the rotation and neither should be considered the obvious choice.

If you look at numbers, the only real advantage Volstad has over Wells is age.

Soto might get you something, but I'm not sure Marmol will get much in return because we would be selling low.

I just can't see Wells in our rotation. I think he's the odd guy out and if things are even between him and. The others, he's the one that's put in the long guy role or traded. For some reason, I think Shark is going to complicate things even further and win a spot. Then, it becomes both those guys, unless there's an injury. Obviously it will come down to who shows more in spring training, but Volstad's stuff would be better than Wells' stuff in relief.

Downsides: injuries to the rotation and Castro, Soto repeating 2009/2011 levels of performance, less power on this year's team, LaHair being a 4A player and Rizzo regressing. I could easily see this team being worse than last year. Really, Castro might not be able to do what he has done? I look at Castro and I see Grace, Carter, Madlock, Santo, Williams and Banks. Castro will probably have a better career than all those guys.(Also, I have no clue how you decided to lump those 6 guys together.) Madlock might be a good comparison although Castro seems to have the potential for more power. As for Williams and Banks, Castro has a long way to go to be mentioned as HOF worthy.

From MLBTR: •Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com suggests the Brewers, Cubs and Astros are all fits for Edgar Renteria, who intends to play in 2012 (Twitter link Heyman must have been drinking to include the Cubs.

From MLBTR: Word from Joel Sherman of the New York Post is that the Yankees are "quietly — but diligently — still working to trade" Burnett to create additonal payroll flexibility for both Eric Chavez and one of Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, or Raul Ibanez. GM Brian Cashman lacks leverage, as Burnett hasn't pitched well over the last two seasons and will be battling this spring to crack the Yankees' rotation. So if Burnett's free agent value is around $12MM over two years, Cashman might have to let a team take him for $8-10MM over that span. That could be the possible savings for the Yankees against the $33MM owed to the 35-year-old.

Signing Edwin Jackson or Roy Oswalt to a short-term (1 or 2 year) contract would be pointless given the Cubs' situation. It adds a few wins to a sub-.500 team. Who cares. The best you can hope for is to trade them later on. That may be one way to acquire prospects, but it surely must be the least efficient. Yeah, you completely missed the point. Had the Cubs front office wanted to, they would have been able to field an over - .500 ballclub while staying within the budget and without saddling the payroll with poor long term contracts. Is it the optimal way to acquire prospects? Absolutely not. But there would have been some semblance of competing during the process. And we'd still be able to make moves to leave us better off in the long run. I'm guessing the Cubs did make inquiries into guys like Oswalt and Jackson. It's pretty clear Oswalt doesn't want to play here (or anywhere in the Midwest), and Jackson turned down a 3 year deal with the Pirates (who are similar to us) to take a one year deal with someone else. Theo can't make these guys come here, and he shouldn't overpay for them so that they do want to come here. For once, we have a management team willing to show restraint, which is why I won't be upset if we lose out on Cespedes because the Marlins gave him $70 $80 million. Last year, we headed into spring training with a bad team that, if everything went right, could be above .500. This year, we head into spring training with a bad team that, if everything goes right, could be above .500. The difference is that we'll be relying on young-ish players taking a step forward, whereas last year we were relying on old guys repeating career years. I never understood the desire to overpay and give up assets this offseason for a better shot at 83 wins. That's basically been the Cubs' strategy for the past 20 years. This team would really need everything to go right to have a shot at .500. Gigantic rebounds by Dejesus, Soto, Dempster, and Marmol in addition to breakout years by Lahair, Stewart, and T.Wood might give them a shot at .500.

not a chance I guess we'll never know, but I would think that a GM signing him to an extension or a FA signing would have a few worries before giving him a gigantic contract.

From MLBTR: •Jackson turned down a three-year, $30MM offer to sign his one-year deal with Washington, tweets Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com. Pretty gutsy (or stupid) move to turn down a pretty decent 3 year deal for a 1 year deal.

I wish him the best of luck. Having said that, his "night on the town" probably cost him millions of dollars on his next contract.

Not too likely with free agency and the fact that the Rays are pretty much a small market.

I don't think there are too many trades at this time because everybody is heading to spring training. Also, I would think Selig would have to update any compensation on whether the player is property of the Cubs at the time of the decision.

For the right price and no NTC it might make sense. Trading Garza for multiple prospects that are 1-3 years away from the ML while plugging Jackson into the rotation and possibly flipping him or Dempster at the deadline makes sense for a rebuilding team. Obviously, the right price is the key.

Actually it's been about 5 generations of bookies.