Backtobanks

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them. A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012. It's best to just ignore the upgrades when doing these calculations. Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them. A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012.

Nah. It couldn't. I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

I don't think there's any question whether they can afford to resign him, I think they might just not want to resign him. My guess is management might not view him as the elite pitcher he will no doubt be paid to be. There is also the issue of spending $20 million over the next two years for the ace of a 75 win team. Without spending the $20 million over the next two years we might be a 60-win team. You've got Garza worth 30 wins over the next two years? It could be that it was an exaggeration that the 2012-2013 teams are 75-win teams with Garza.

He should have learned the lesson from the original incident - not much good happens after midnight.

I don't think there's any question whether they can afford to resign him, I think they might just not want to resign him. My guess is management might not view him as the elite pitcher he will no doubt be paid to be. There is also the issue of spending $20 million over the next two years for the ace of a 75 win team. Without spending the $20 million over the next two years we might be a 60-win team.

Garza will be young enough and good enough in 2-3 years to be a TOR starter for the Cubs, so it doesn't make sense to trade him for anything less than an elite prospect (or two). We've got enough middle-of-the-rotation/back-of-the-rotation/question marks.

I do think that a big part of the hometown discount was because of the old regime. I'm sure there was a very comfortable feeling with all of the talk about becoming the "new Ron Santo" and stepping into the broadcasting booth after finishing his career. As part of the "old Cubs", he's probably not sure of how he fits in going forward.

I don't understand the question. It's common knowledge that Theo was a RS fan before he was hired by them and I would think it's pretty obvious that Santo and Wood have (had) an emotional attachment to the Cubs. I'm not knocking Theo, I'm just pointing out that he has a job to do with the Cubs and he's doing it without any sentimental attachment with the team. The question is where is your evidence that he'll only act in "all business, no sentiment" terms with the Cubs? Signing Wood is about the only action he's had that would be higher on the sentiment scale than business sense scale and they said a week ago that they would get it done. Unless he's torn Ronnie's flag off the pole, I'm not sure what evidence you've got that he's going to be all cold hearted here. What's the point of this discussion? I think what he's trying to say is that a new boss is not going to be sentimental toward employees that he just met. I didn't see where he said that Epstein will "always" be cold hearted regarding the Cubs. Maybe someday Robert California will be sentimental toward the employees of Dunder Mifflin but he's not likely to be sentimental beginning on day 1. Thanks for understanding the point I was making. Sometimes you have to go outside of the organization to hire someone who isn't tied down with all of the sentimental baggage that comes with all that is the Chicago Cubs.

Yeah, everything I had read mentioned around $10 million. Good signing.

I don't understand the question. It's common knowledge that Theo was a RS fan before he was hired by them and I would think it's pretty obvious that Santo and Wood have (had) an emotional attachment to the Cubs. I'm not knocking Theo, I'm just pointing out that he has a job to do with the Cubs and he's doing it without any sentimental attachment with the team.

Theo understood Red Sox sentiment because he was a fan of the Red Sox. But you just said he was all business no sentiment and since his only gig was with the Sox, that must have been what you were alluding to. This act of yours has grown tired. He was brought to the Cubs to be all about business and has (had) no sentimental attachment to the Cubs. He was a fan of the Red Sox well before he was hired by them and had plenty of sentimental attachment to them. When Santo went to the White Sox, he did his job, but his sentimental attachment was with the Cubs. I'm sure that would be true if Kerry Wood signs somwhere else.

That sounds about right to me. Being the 87th, 90th, 80th or 62nd best starting pitcher is right exactly where I was placing him: A solid No. 3 starter. Using "qualified" usually undersells a player (and yes, I did it too with LFers earlier) because the bad players don't play enough to be qualified. I think a lot of the talk about whether a guy is a 3, 4 or 5 is a bunch of nonsense, but I'll comment anyway because I'm drawn to nonsense. Maybe that qualifies a guy to being labeled an average pitcher on an average team, but better pitching staffs are going to have better guys as their 3rd best. I wouldn't call such a player a player a "solid #3", he's a #3 if you are comfortable with a pitching staff that probably isn't good enough to be playoff caliber. If you are thinking about being a good team, you don't want such a guy as your 3rd best starter unless you have the best offense around, and even then you're probably spending half the season looking at finding a better pitcher to slot ahead of him. Also, it's not just bad performers that aren't qualifying, it's good guys who deal with injury, or good call-ups. Exactly my point about Wood and Sappelt. On a poor team they are a #3 starter and a starting OF. On a decent team, Sappelt is a 4th OF and Wood might be a #3 starter. On a good team, Sappelt is a 4th OF and Wood is a #4 starter. I realize we're punting 2012, but some of you need to be reminded that we're a large market team.

Signing Malholm will certainly give us the deepest back of the rotation in baseball. Wood, Malholm, Wells, Volstad, Sonnastine, etc.

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better. I don't have a problem with giving prospects a chance, but there aren't many people in baseball that wouldn't call Lahair and Stewart question marks, Sappelt and Johnson 4th or 5th OFs, and Wells/Volstad/wood #4 or #5 starters. "Our guys" are throwing them out there and hoping for the best while looking for their replacements in 2013. The existence of people in baseball who think of Sappelt as a 4th OFer, and *especially* Wood as a No. 4 or 5 starter, is the reason why "our guys" are brilliant and their guys are not. It's very lazy thinking, it ignores several decades of brilliant statistical analysis and research, and it's just plain wrong. Wood might have potential to be a #3. I haven't read anything that suggests Sappelt is more than a 4th OF on a decent team. If he plays regularly, it means we're not very good not that he is good.

Theo understood Red Sox sentiment because he was a fan of the Red Sox.

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better. I don't have a problem with giving prospects a chance, but there aren't many people in baseball that wouldn't call Lahair and Stewart question marks, Sappelt and Johnson 4th or 5th OFs, and Wells/Volstad/wood #4 or #5 starters. "Our guys" are throwing them out there and hoping for the best while looking for their replacements in 2013.

I don't see very much that we have acquired that would be valuable pieces for an emerging superstar. I think Travis Wood and Rizzo have solid futures, but everybody else seems to be roster depth at the ML level or ml level.

When you say the organization, You must mean Ricketts and not Theo. I'm sure Ricketts understands what Wood means to the Cubs, but Theo is all business and no sentiment. Not saying that's all bad, but true.

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

Bradley, Soriano, Fukudome, Hawkins..etc.... you might remember them. I don't know whether the Cubs will be good or entertaining, but they appear to have a plan and I'm willing to give them time to see how it takes shape. I admit being less patient than most posters on NSBB, but I wonder how much time we give them before fans start to get upset. My first expectations were a decent team in 2012 and a contender in 2013. I've accepted the new strategy of rebuilding, but I think it should only push back expectations 1 year. If we aren't serious contenders with a solid roster in 2014 and every year thereafter, then Theo is not doing his job. All of this 4-5 year talk is BS.

I guess my question is, who do they spend those eleventy bajillion dollars on? The FA pitching class next year looks really good right now, but is it smart to give out two 5+ year, huge money deals to 28-29 year old pitchers with lots of mileage? Let's say we sign one of Cain/Hamels/Greinke (if any of them hit FA, which I think only Greinke is likely to do), where else do we spend that money? I think real contention in 2013 at this point hinges on keeping Garza. If we trade him, I think we have to pursue a couple of top FA pitchers next offseason (since Wood would be our best starter) and possibly a big bat as well if Cespedes and Rizzo don't break out quickly. If we keep Garza, I think we're in a similar position in the 2012 offseason as we were at the start of this offseason - get a couple of impact type players and you have a shot at contention if the rest of the division is less than stellar. I still think contention in 2014 and dominance in 2015 is the most likely route, and most realistic by far, at this point. Though with Theo/Jed at the helm, I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out. That's been my concern all along. Young players/prospects are great, but again there is no guarantee that they will reach their potential. The strategy is based on some/many of these young players developing into solid ML players (not a sure thing), signing top FAs when the team is ready (assuming the players make it to free agency and the teams like the Yankees and Red Sox decide to let us outbid them), and trading from our now-deep farm system for productive players when the team is ready to contend. I have faith in Theo, but I think he had better get serious before opening day 2013 about having a solid core of players on the field if there's any hope of contending in 2014.

Well I've been a Cub fan for 57 years and my patience is wearing a little thin.

I'd argue the problem for the Orioles right now is a) Some of their young arms have really faltered and have serious concerns (Matusz/Tillman). They had four young arms they were looking forward to ... right now, of that foursome (the aforementioned duo and Britton/Arrieta), they look to have 1 good starter, 1 inconsistent starter, and 2 gigantic question marks. No team should ever realistically hope that 4/4 top prospect arms should hit, but it sure feel like they expected 3 of them to. b) A relatively weak system. A couple stud guys in Dylan Bundy and Manny Machado, but really, this system is pretty bad right now. There's Schoop, a whole bunch of folks from this draft class (which doesn't look that great), Bobby Bundy. c) (and why I responded) A lack of quality trade chips/trade chips they over-value. I'm not sure too many teams are going to fork over the quality assets that the Orioles believe they should get for Nick Markakis and Jeremy Guthrie, but the Orioles aren't moving them unless it's a quality return. Markakis' power decline has a lot of folks alarmed, and he's signed down for fairly big money (3/42 left with an additional option year at 17.5 or a 3 mil buyout). Guthrie's a Randy Wells/Chris Volstad/Travis Wood level pitcher masquerading as an ace and not exactly cheap. Brian Roberts is an injury prone 2nd baseman now, past his prime, and still locked down for 2/20. Reynolds is Mark Reynolds, a poor fieldng slugger. One of the few guys they should trade (only 2 years until FA) is Adam Jones. Jones, though, is a tough guy to value. Orioles look at him as an emerging stud, while a lot of folks look at his as a poor fielding, questionable discipline guy. They want elite chips ... I'm not sure teams are going to give elite chips for him. Good, perhaps. One guy I would move, if I were them, is JJ Hardy, but I doubt they'll do so. I don't know if he can replicate the offensive season he just had, so this might be peak sell time. In regards to C, its somewhat of a testemet to why our front office team is so valuable. It could be said that we have our own share of players we over value and lack of good trade chips. However, aside from Garza who has real value our guys are willing to move guys for packages that might not look wins at the time but are best for us. Sometimes when a trade is made its OK to let the other guy walking away feeling like they won as long as you get something you really need in return for May something that doesn't fit in with your plans. For example, acquiring Volstad and minimal salary relief for Zambrano may have seemed like a win for the Marlins, especially if Ozzie can keep Z in line and get a great back end starter out of him, and that's what he'd be there with JJ, Buehrle, Sanchez, and Nolasco in the rotation. Volstad may have seen like junk to most of us, but Theo loves these former top prospects who are still young enough that theres a glimmer of hope that he can be useful for us long after Big Z would be gone anyway. Let's not give "our guys" too much credit. Any team trading ML talent for prospects doesn't look like a "win", but they think it's what's best for them. Obviously, the team receiving the ML talent (Marlins) are in a win-now mode while the Cubs are in a rebuilding mode.

For that to happen you're going to need a lot of things to go right (Jackson, Stewart, Lahair, Volsted/Wells, etc.). After many years of so much going wrong for the Cubs (mostly injuries), maybe they're due to have some good things happen.