Backtobanks

To end all of the speculation: From MLBTR: •Signing Fielder is "just not going to happen" for the Cubs, manager Dale Svuem told reporters, including Chris De Luca and Godron Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times (Twitter link).

You are just wrong about this. Bill James proved pretty conclusively in the 1980s that properly adjusted minor league statistics are just as predictive as major-league statistics. Yes, sometimes prospects flame out. Most of the time, this isn't because their MiLB statistics weren't predictive enough, it's because their MiLB statistics were projecting them to be not good enough but the team was counting on them to improve with age. You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? ML teams call up players who have lousy numbers in the minors because they think those lousy minor league numbers will improve with age. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean? Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive. Every player on a major-league roster has a significant track record from which we can make reasonable projections about their productivity. Every player on a major-league roster has a non-zero chance of performing significantly differently than what we expect, including the so-called "sure thing" stars. That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

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. You're kinda forgetting something important. The #4 and #5 pitchers the entire year. Assuming they will be healthy and reasonably productive, the BOR will be an upgrade. The offensive downgrades will be the problem in 2012 unless we get a big surprise from LaHair/Stewart/Jackson.

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean? Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

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.