Backtobanks

Theo was brought here to win a WS. He has complete autonomy over baseball operations according to PTR and Theo. As for the money situation, Theo has made gigantic offers (but not enough) to Darvish and Tanaka, so I assume there's money there to spend. The way it looks now there's a chance that we might make the playoffs in 2016 (the last year of his 5-year contract). Getting to the playoffs is fine, but it's not that great of an accomplishment with the 2-wildcard system. I'm tired of reading about real estate, law suits, and what cheap FAs we can sign and flip next year. The time is now (2014 offseason) to show that ownership and the FO is serious about building the Cubs into a WS winner or 100-win juggernaut.

He's had a little more success since leaving Colorado (though he never really had worse numbers at home). He had some success in relief this year, before going back into the rotation in May. Valbuena has pretty much gone back to his previous norms average wise in the last month and a half, but is really not walking as much as he had been either. Ultimately, he'll be a utility guy and I think a 25-yo starter at best or decent reliever at worst is probably slightly more valuable. That being said, I'm pretty much with you. I'd probably do the deal, but I'd hope it would be on the table a little later. I know the ML team doesn't matter, but I really don't want the alternatives playing everyday at 3B (Olt, Watkins, Valaika?) if Valbuena is gone. And that goes for the start of 2015 until one of the young guys establishes himself at the ML level. The A's need a 2B bad and very soon. If Pomeranz is on the table, I'd jump on it. That said, Valbuena has value to the Cubs for his versatility and ability to be a decent stopgap until the kids are up AND have no problem coming off the bench when that time comes. His selectivity at the plate and the moderate pop in his bat profiles as a good pinch hitter. I like him but for the lottery ticket that is Pomeranz (5th pick overall, 25 years old, MOR ceiling, good reliever floor), I'd do it. Milone requested a trade according to MLBTR. It might be interesting to trade Valbuena + ??????? for Milone and Pomeranz to give us some possible depth to our future rotation.

Yeah, he's going to play the role of Bonifacio for now. Is it just me or is it very clear EXACTLY who (and in the same role) each of our super prospects will be replacing? Almost as though each of the stop gaps was brought in to hold a very specific spot... I think it's very much up in the air. Are you saying Starlin is a placeholder for Russell? I really think that they have a lot of options with the types of players they have in the minors. Everything is up in the air because some of the super prospects may not make it and/or will be traded for pitching at some point.

If we're not better next year, there's always 2016 (or 2017) to look forward to.

I think most active people here are 30-50. I'll bet the one I responded to isn't in that age range.

Mine is just as obvious - Mr. Cub. Ernie came along when I was the age to start getting into baseball and was basically the only reason to follow the Cubs for quite a few years. Wait, you're in your 60s? He's Backtobanks. As in, he goes all the way back to Banks. I guess I was picturing douchebag, 20-something meatball, not old, curmudgeon meatball...but really, either works. Yeah, I'm an old curmudgeon meatball that doesn't mind posting with a bunch of douchebag, 20-something meatballs.

Mine is just as obvious - Mr. Cub. Ernie came along when I was the age to start getting into baseball and was basically the only reason to follow the Cubs for quite a few years.

Also, that more or less confirms that Theo does all the real work and Hoyer just fetches coffee or something. That's been pretty much a given since day one.

It's pretty incredible. My DBacks fan friends are just beyond exasperated at this point. This might be the reason (MLBTR) -The Diamondbacks placed now-Yankees pitcher Brandon McCarthy on waivers six to eight weeks ago, Joel Sherman of the New York Post tweets. That means anyone could have claimed him and assumed the remainder of his $9MM salary for 2014. No one bit.

Quite a few posters got pretty excited when the Cubs started playing better and winning some games. Good thing you kept a level head. Somebody has to do it.

Quite a few posters got pretty excited when the Cubs started playing better and winning some games.

I understand how good Russell is and I've not said a bad thing about that portion of the deal. But Shark is a legit TOR pitcher and he has fewer innings on his arm than pretty much any 29 year old stud you're going to find. We got a great talent, but we gave up a great talent too and the 2nd and 3rd pieces are intriguing, but questionable. Not a bad deal by any stretch, but I'm not sure it's exciting either. It's certainly not a bad deal, but just 1-2 days ago we were hearing that the asking price for Samardzija alone was 3 top prospects plus one other. It will be interesting to see what kind of deal the FO makes for pitching by using the surplus offensive prospects. Vogelbach, Soler, Almora, and Alcantara could all be expendable depending on how prospects develop and take to playing new positions.

That would be okay if we had seven other above average position players and a great pitching staff.

I didn't say that he's not a "damn good talent judge". The Padres might want him because they hired him before and obviously thought he had talent.

It could also have something to do with the fact that McLeod came from the Padres.

I think that's a good thing for the Cubs. It sets the price and takes Price off the market. Yeah, but how many teams are willing to pay 3-4 good prospects for a top pitcher? Whatever that number might be will be reduced by one if Price is traded first. Also, whatever the Rays get for Price might have been the guys we were going to get for Shark.

Hope the Cubs don't wait too long or the market might be reduced. From MLBTR: While no deal is imminent at the moment, rival officials tell ESPN’s Buster Olney that the Rays are prepared to move David Price “right now” if the right offer presents itself

Ken Rosenthal mentioned that trading Cashner would speed up rebuilding for the Padres. After loading up on prospects from trading Hammel, Shark, and whoever else, it might be interesting to check on what the Padres might want for Cashner.

I don't think they want or need Barney.

I have read some of the posts that other members have posted, but I do have a little trouble understanding how a player with a negative WAR (Ruggiano this year) has better numbers than someone (Schierholtz) who had a positive WAR last year. Am I wrong in assuming a positive WAR is better statistically than a negative WAR? Well, let's go super simple then. One guy made an out 69.9% of the time and the other made an out 64.6% of the time. Which one was more successful? Which is one problem with all of the statistics thrown around - often one stat contradicts another.

Maybe if you followed the discussion, you would see that I'm not the one who posted "cherry-picked" statistics on Ruggiano this season. When someone posted about his trade value, I posted that if someone offered something decent that we ought to trade him before he turns into Nate Schierholtz (meaning he'll lose his trade value). His "advantage" this year (OBP) over Schierholtz last year will most likely disappear as the season wears on and he reverts closer to his norm (.318).

Honest question: you have nearly 6 THOUSAND posts on this board since 2003. In that span, have you read anything about stats from other members? The assertions you're making are shocking for someone who has been part of this community for that long. I have read some of the posts that other members have posted, but I do have a little trouble understanding how a player with a negative WAR (Ruggiano this year) has better numbers than someone (Schierholtz) who had a positive WAR last year. Am I wrong in assuming a positive WAR is better statistically than a negative WAR?

False. They're close, but false. Ruggiano: .247/.354/.395/.749 OPS+=104 with 2 HR and 8 RBI Schierholtz: .251/.301/.470/.770 OPS+ =107 with 21 HR and 68 RBI I'm not sure what obscure stats you're looking at, but Nate certainly had better numbers last year. hahahahahaha WOW Apparently that is your response when stats show you're wrong.

False. They're close, but false. Ruggiano: .247/.354/.395/.749 OPS+=104 with 2 HR and 8 RBI Schierholtz: .251/.301/.470/.770 OPS+ =107 with 21 HR and 68 RBI I'm not sure what obscure stats you're looking at, but Nate certainly had better numbers last year. Nate has the SLG but Ruggiano has the much more important 53 point lead in OBP. I'm sure the "obscure" non-RBI stats also have something to say. Ruggiano's WAR for the season is -0.3. Nate's 2013 WAR 1.4. get the hell out of here with those obscure stats

False. They're close, but false. Ruggiano: .247/.354/.395/.749 OPS+=104 with 2 HR and 8 RBI Schierholtz: .251/.301/.470/.770 OPS+ =107 with 21 HR and 68 RBI I'm not sure what obscure stats you're looking at, but Nate certainly had better numbers last year.