Backtobanks

I still think some team is going to make a ridiculous offer to Wilson and blow everybody else out of the water.

As much as I want Epstein, I will repeat what I have posted before - there isn't any GM out there that's worth giving up much of anything for. With 3 or 4 very capable "B list" candidates for free, they can keep Epstein (or whomever) if they expect any of our top prospects.

Well, this is true. Then what are all of these rumors about hiring 3 guys to replace him.

Obviously the rumors of the WS sitting out 2012 (playing the kids, riding out the bad contracts, etc.) are true. Why pay an experienced manager when you can go cheap.

Is he really a high reward type of guy? He's had 3 seasons out of 12 where he's posted an ERA below 4.00 and has a career K/9 of 4.86. His best WAR season was 3.9 (1.9 career average) and his xFIP has been between 4.10 and 4.86 his entire career. He's a really good bet to be mediocre. That said, I'd consider him if the Cubs give away Z. He's a really good bet to provide stability (stable mediocrity, but that's better than we had this year) to the back end of the rotation should we miss out on both Wilson and CC. I don't see any way that he's a high reward guy though. Compared to Coleman and Lopez, a #5 starter who can give you a WAR of 1.9 and 180+ innings looks like a godsend to me.

I would assume the Red Sox would keep Cherington to take over at GM. As I've posted before, Epstein (or Beane, Friedman, Cashman) aren't worth giving up much or anything as long as Cherington, Hahn, or the guy from the Braves are available for free.

From MLBTR: Dodgers Decline Options On Garland, Blake By Tim Dierkes [October 4 at 2:03pm CST] The Dodgers announced on Twitter today that they've declined club options on starter Jon Garland and third baseman Casey Blake, and also outrighted Eugenio Velez to Triple-A. Typically option decisions are announced after the World Series, but Garland and Blake were obvious choices. For Garland, the Dodgers chose a $500K buyout over an $8MM club option. Garland had signed for a below-market guarantee of $5MM in November, but a vesting option in the contract became moot when the righty when down for an oblique injury in March and shoulder surgery in July. Garland, now 32, had previously been a lock for around 200 innings per season. If Garland is healthy, his agents at LSW Baseball should have no problem finding a one-year deal worth a few million plus incentives, along with a back-end rotation job. Depending on our other offseason moves and Garland's health, he might be a low risk/high reward pickup on the deal mentioned.

Any GM that we have to pay compensation for has warts. The list of "Plan B" candidates are fine if the other team is expecting compensation for the "short list/plan A candidates".

Add a ton of money to their budget because of salary and pregame food. All kidding aside, CC would be great except that he is the anti-Wilson - already very expensive and a lot of wear and tear on the arm.

I posted a while ago that a reasonably priced Ramirez is my first choice, but maybe a deal for Chris Davis might be worth a shot. Still young, unfulfilled potential, left-handed.

I bet if you call B2B, he'll be able to work in A Gon. Will you guys quit calling on me. I'm busy interviewing with Ricketts for the GM position.

It's a fair point but in those 2 seasons he won 89 and 90 games, win totals that the Cubs have only reached twice in the last 13 years (2004 and 2008), and 3 times in the last 22 years. Then you consider the fact that he'd be building a team in a much easier league and division, and the fact that he built 2 World Series champions, and it becomes a moot point. There's no doubt that he's been a great GM in the toughest division in baseball, but I'm not sure about the NL necessarily being an "easier" league than the AL. Also, constructing a team is different because of the DH in the AL.

And if we bring Aramis back, we have to sign one of Fielder/Wilson and have to hope that Aramis - at 34 years old - can stay healthy for at least as many games as he did this year and hope he doesn't decline any more than he did from 2008 to 2011 (30 point OPS drop) just to be better than we were this year. If Aramis goes down for 40-80 games like he has two of the past three years, then even if we do sign one of Fielder/Wilson, we have little to no shot to compete. You're portraying keeping Aramis as the safe route, however it simply isn't that safe a route. It's very likely that Aramis will miss significant time next year and/or that his OPS drop from 2008 to 2011 will continue even if he is healthy next year. And if that happens then we have $12-16 million tied up in an aging, injured player for each of the next two years. If we let Aramis walk and miss on one of Fielder/Wilson, we still have money to go out on the trade market and see what we can get without having to look only at longshot missed prospects. I think Aramis is miles ahead of any option at 3B for the next year or two. Of course there is a risk in re-signing him, but everything is predicated on getting him at a hometown-friendly contract. With the right contract, I think the Cubs can still be competitive in the bidding for Fielder and Wilson. Also, I think if Ricketts is smart enough to listen to his GM, he won't let a few million stop the Cubs from becoming instant contenders. If we miss on one of them, there's still room for additions in the trade market.

And all it takes is the nearly inevitable moment that Pujols hits FA and for CC to opt out (less inevitable) to increase the odds of landing both Fielder and Wilson significantly. And what if you bring back Aramis and pass on Wilson and then Aramis plays 82 games again next year like he did last year? Then you're really got a pitiful team because you weren't even planning on not having a third baseman. You keep talking like bringing Aramis back does not involve a huge amount of risk in and of itself - it does. Aramis has not been healthy for 2 of the past 3 years and there's a very strong likelihood that he'll be hurt for a substantial portion of next year. Let me put it this way, if we let Ramirez walk, we have to sign both Fielder and Wilson to have a chance next year. If we sign one of them, we are still at least 1-2 years from competing. God forbid we don't get either of them (a distinct possibility with those 2 crazy offers I mentioned).

As many of us have pointed out, Baker's numbers against lefties would only be about 20% of the playing time. I still think Ramirez will be willing to re-sign at a hometown discount. I also think that some team is going to make a ridiculous offer to either Fielder and/or Wilson, so that the Cubs won't get both of them regardless of who is playing 3B. I do realize we have as much money as anyone this offseason, but all it takes is 2 crazy offers (without re-signing Ramirez) to make a pretty ugly team for 3-4 years.

The problem with using the "league average" at 3B is that some teams have above average production at other positions. Back when Sandberg was playing 2B, you could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" position.

You don't have to fight to keep a guy under contract that is hard to trade. You tell your owner you gave it the old college try but did not feel comfortable with any offers and would feel more comfortable to try and make it work with him than dump him. The Cubs already suck and will have a tough time to be good next year. Letting Ramirez walk and paying Zambrano to go away is just going to make it harder to conted next season. As I've posted before, the Cubs have no leverage in this situation, but I can't believe some other team doesn't want to take a chance on him as a #3 or #4 starter with the Cubs footing most of the bill.

They probably already have, but we won't know anything unless the people with whom they are talking leak it. It will be interesting to see what sort of compensation the Cubs will have to pay if they get Beane or Epstein. Friedman does not have a contract. I still think it will be a lieutenant who gets the job. I'm hoping for Cherington if the above three decline. If the WS wanted Morrison from the Marlins for Guillen, I would imagine Epstein would cost us Castro.

Probably more of a backup plan than leverage. Yeah, somehow they had room for both of them on the team this year.

How about Zambrano + $15 million to the Orioles for Guthrie and Chris Davis. Davis gets a shot at 3B (assuming we don't re-sign Ramirez) and Guthrie adds depth to the back of the rotation.

If Aramis were a sure thing to be healthy and productive, I might agree with you. But he's not, so even though he'll be easy to bring back, there's considerable doubt whether he will even be worth his contract (or even healthy/productive) next year. So with considerable risk involved in both scenarios, I prefer the greater risk with significantly greater payoff potential to the lower risk, but much lower payoff potential. Keep in mind as well, as TT has pointed out, if we go the Fielder/Wilson route and miss on one or both, it means we still have money available to pursue trade targets. If we re-sign Aramis immediately, it limits our options a bit if unexpected trade targets become available early in the FA process. The Fielder/Wilson route isn't both of those two or bust. I've been saying all along that I think we should look at the trade market to upgrade for younger players that are getting too expensive for their teams. Others have made a point of stating that we should go all in for Fielder/Wilson because it only involves money and not prospects. As for Aramis' ability to stay healthy and productive, I agree that there is no guarantee about his health, but his production hasn't declined at all when he's healthy. If there was a decent option ready to take over 3B, I might agree with you.

Picked this up on MLBTR. Probably just talk, but still. http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/6998951/aramis-ramirez-believes-done-chicago-cub What did you expect him to say after his agent reminded him that everything you say could make/cost you millions of dollars.

The best way to determine a decline is not to look at one year in a player's career - you need something to compare him to. Here's the comparison for Aramis: 2008: .898 OPS/149 games played 2009: .905 OPS/82 games played 2010: .745 OPS/124 games played 2011: .867 OPS/147 games played In 2 of the past 4 seasons he's missed significant portions of the year - 38 games in 2010 and half the year in 2009. For the first time since 2008 he was very healthy this year, and managed an OPS 30 points below his most previous fully healthy year. Defensively, UZR/150 has had him getting consistently worse every year since 2008 to the point that his UZR/150 this year was -10.0. I realize UZR isn't gospel, but it's something to consider. Aramis may come out and have another good year next year and be fully healthy, I'm not saying he's a definite to break down next year. However, there is a very real risk that he may repeat his 2010 season or even his 2009 season rather than 2011. That risk needs to be factored in when considering giving him big money and the fact that he's going to be older next season than he was any of the past 4 years (obviously), that risk only goes up. I still think re-signing Ramirez is the way to go assuming he will go for a 2-year contract with a reasonable hometown discount. Leaving a gaping hole at 3B while hopefully winning a bidding war on Fielder and/or Wilson is just too risky. Also, there might be a ridiculous contract offer (like you mentioned) on one of these two. A rebuilding year in 2012 after a lousy 2011 might not attract FAs in 2013. Also, a rebuilding year in 2012 might lower the revenue in the future.

Obviously Ramirez is trending downward at an alarming rate as proven by his .317/.380/.520/.900 line since the All Star break. His line for the season (.306/.360/.506/.866) is further proof that he needs to be replaced because he's headed for a complete breakdown. :-k