Backtobanks

I think Quinns issues would go much deeper than a fall out from putting state money into Wrigley would cause. But you're talking about putting a ton of state money into Wrigley in addition to his other issues while running against a very conservative, cut-everything Republican.

That's what I always questioned. I can't believe that anyone seriously thought the city or state was going to help when both of them are broke and have been for quite awhile. You can't believe that a government agency, even if they're broke, would kick in money to a project that would cost them something up front but they stand to benefit from in the millions on an annual basis from? You're right, that's totally crazy talk. I'm sure the mayor (or governor) would love to bankrupt the city (or state) while being booted out of office so that the mayor (or governor) in 20 years can reap the benefits of such a deal. Do you live in Illinois? Yeah, I've lived here my whole life. Our politicians are noted for making deals that benefit them and not some future office holder. Emanuel probably doesn't have to worry too much about being re-elected when the mayoral election comes up, but Quinn could be in trouble in this year's election.

That's what I always questioned. I can't believe that anyone seriously thought the city or state was going to help when both of them are broke and have been for quite awhile. You can't believe that a government agency, even if they're broke, would kick in money to a project that would cost them something up front but they stand to benefit from in the millions on an annual basis from? You're right, that's totally crazy talk. I'm sure the mayor (or governor) would love to bankrupt the city (or state) while being booted out of office so that the mayor (or governor) in 20 years can reap the benefits of such a deal.

That's what I always questioned. I can't believe that anyone seriously thought the city or state was going to help when both of them are broke and have been for quite awhile.

Kind of vague. Hope it's nothing too serious. Apparently it is some lingering neck issue and he didn't want to pitch through it, though he hasn't ruled out pitching next year/ I'm glad to hear that it's a neck issue and not some life-threatening illness. I worried when a competitor like he is leaves over $13 million on the table to spend more time with his kids.

Kind of vague. Hope it's nothing too serious.

Meanwhile, we can't afford to sign any ballplayers.

I questioned all of the enthusiasm shown here when Theo was hired because it seemed like many of the posters thought that all of baseball was going to roll over and allow Theo to draft and sign the best players and get the best of every trade made. As you pointed out, many executives have caught up to (and maybe passed) Theo since his early days in Boston. As for the money issue, it still looks to me like they're choosing not to spend rather than not having it to spend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/masahiro-tanaka-expensive-flight_n_4764346.html we dodged a bullet We certainly don't want a high quality, young pitcher who would wastefully spend $200,000 to make sure he "in the best of form" in spring training.

On a minor league deal. That's surprising. I wish the Cubs could have gotten him on that deal.

I'm always glad to see hoops post here... I always enjoyed Hoops' posts. He seemed to have some decent information.

I can't wait for the day that we can discuss acquiring players that will help the team instead of how soon we can flip them.

Maybe we can import some from St. Louis.

Of course Bonds had a little help along the way.

With the talk of Vitters playing OF and Bryant's future as an OF, I'm wondering if we can find one more 3B to convert to the OF so we can have three former 3B as our starting OF.

You forgot Tanaka might be a free agent in 2018 too. Of course signing Trout, Harper, or Tanaka for $30+ million per year for 7-10 years means you have to have an owner and FO willing to spend that much. Also, you need to have a team attractive enough to attract the top FAs.

They could regress some, but they still have a lot of young talent and still have a 24 game advantage from last year over us.

If Freese comes back to Earth it will be in Anaheim, not St. Louis. Possible, but not likely. The bottom line is that if you compare our roster with the other three, we're not even close. Of course baseball isn't played on paper and there's always things you can't predict (injuries, someone unexpected having a career year, a decent player having a horrendous year, etc.), but I don't see anything at this point to make up the 24 games that seperated us from the wild card last year.

This team isn't a playoff team no matter what kind of start we get off to. I get the fact that it's not likely, but it's not impossible. Starts with Mike Olt putting up what North mentioned, a .220ish BA, lots of walks, 20-25 HR. Good defense at 3B. Which moves Valbuena into a utility role, strengthening the bench, especially since he's giving Barney plenty of rest. Rizzo and Castro are both All Star candidates at midseason. Castillo puts up the same numbers, with the power expected as well. The OF isn't the WORST in the majors, but around 20th or so. Shark takes a step forward and is also an All Star candidate. Wood plays close to the same level as last season. Edwin pitches to his peripherals and puts up much better numbers than last year. Arrieta proves he's worthy of a rotation spot and whoever we've got at 5, isn't awful. The pen performs as we think it can, becomes a legit strength. That could put us in the .500 range, at the ASB. Javy and KB could come up to play 2B and RF to give a boost in the 2nd half and Alcantara/Vogelbach could bring in an OFer or a SP thru trade and we compete in the 2nd half. That's a whole lot of "what ifs". No [expletive]? Really, I had no idea. But you said no way, in your typical negative way, so I showed you a way, acknowledging it's not likely. The 2012 Orioles were brought up as a great example too. Staying in the hunt until the midway point isn't unheard of. Plenty of teams not expected to contend, get that far. And if we DID, we've certainly got guys that can help in the 2nd half and trade chips to bring in additional help. I'm not being "typically negative", but being realistic. Of course anything is possible as long as you add the disclaimer that it's not likely. In addition to the 2012 Orioles having a great season, they were aided by the total collapse of the Red Sox and a bad season by the Blue Jays. Let's put it this way, which 2 teams from the Cardinals, Reds, and Pirates are we going to pass this year to be a wild card?

This team isn't a playoff team no matter what kind of start we get off to. I get the fact that it's not likely, but it's not impossible. Starts with Mike Olt putting up what North mentioned, a .220ish BA, lots of walks, 20-25 HR. Good defense at 3B. Which moves Valbuena into a utility role, strengthening the bench, especially since he's giving Barney plenty of rest. Rizzo and Castro are both All Star candidates at midseason. Castillo puts up the same numbers, with the power expected as well. The OF isn't the WORST in the majors, but around 20th or so. Shark takes a step forward and is also an All Star candidate. Wood plays close to the same level as last season. Edwin pitches to his peripherals and puts up much better numbers than last year. Arrieta proves he's worthy of a rotation spot and whoever we've got at 5, isn't awful. The pen performs as we think it can, becomes a legit strength. That could put us in the .500 range, at the ASB. Javy and KB could come up to play 2B and RF to give a boost in the 2nd half and Alcantara/Vogelbach could bring in an OFer or a SP thru trade and we compete in the 2nd half. That's a whole lot of "what ifs".

This team isn't a playoff team no matter what kind of start we get off to.

When it comes to the 2020 multibillion new TV contract, the opt out was huge. The Cubs will need to field a very competitive team in 2018 and 2019 to maximize its value. Allowing him the option to leave after 2017 would make no sense in the grand scheme of things. Adding another year which would be 2020 when they have a few hundred million in additional revenues would not be as big of an issue. Signing Tanaka would have pushed the "very competitive team" level to 2015 (or 2016 at the very latest) and given the team a real chance at attracting FAs. Making a smart trade or two, adding a decent FA or two, and having our prospects at the ML level would have allowed Tanaka to leave after 2017 with the team still being very competitive.

Source? Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher. Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners). The bottom line is that all of these "experts" don't have a clue as to which team offered what except for the winning bid. All of the speculation about which team was in the lead "according to sources" was ridiculous. Each team didn't know what the other team's bids were, but these reporters had the "facts" posted all over the internet. Um, you do realize the posting system changed, right? We have no idea how negotiations went. They may have known what other bids were, they may not have. Well if they knew, then all of the "reports" that the Cubs (or the Yankees or the Dodgers) wouldn't be outbid are ridiculous.

Theo took over a very good Red Sox team (89 win average) and made them better (93 win average) with home-grown talent, reclamation players, some shrewd moves, and a gigantic payroll. He never started from scratch (or tore a system down and rebuilt it) like he's trying to do with the Cubs.

Source? Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher. Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners). The bottom line is that all of these "experts" don't have a clue as to which team offered what except for the winning bid. All of the speculation about which team was in the lead "according to sources" was ridiculous. Each team didn't know what the other team's bids were, but these reporters had the "facts" posted all over the internet.