Backtobanks

True. The division is probably the weakest it's been in over a decade. Mine as well go for it now. I would't be surprised if the Yankees and Red Sox found themselves at the bottom of that division for the first time in God knows how long. Not sure it's even happened since they expanded to 3 6 divisions. This being said, knowing the Yankees and Red Sox, it likely won't take them long to buy their ways back to the top. This makes it an ideal time for the rest of the division to take advantage. It makes it the ideal time for all other teams (including the Cubs) to take advantage before the Yankees and Red Sox get back to spending like drunken sailors.

I don't think a GM is going to catch any grief when he gets in one of those hot streaks and starts hitting 3-4 HRs in a week, especially if he's cheap and probably playing DH.

Yeah, it would have been nice to get in on the Royals or Blue Jays action.

And as long as we're using wins as the basis for determining "better", there's a good chance that there will be another sell-off at the trade deadline affecting the win total. By August, there's a good chance that some combination of Soriano, Garza, Marmol, DeJesus, Camp, etc. might be gone and replaced by prospects.

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year. You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed. It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad. I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

Tim, the discussion was about comparing the 2012 Cubs and the 2013 Cubs at this point of the offseason. Nobody expected Byrd and Soto to completely fall off the cliff offensively. Byrd was coming off .276/.324/.395/.719 in 2011 and .293/.346/.429/.775 in 2010 while Soto was coming off .228/.310/.411/.721 in 2011 and .280/.393/.497/.890 in 2010. I certainly expect Rizzo to improve, but will he surpass LaHair (1st half)/Rizzo (2nd half) production? So again comparing what we expected from Byrd and Soto to what we should expect from Schierholtz and Castillo doesn't seem too much of an improvement. 3B is still a question mark since all of the candidates are basically the same as last year.

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

I would guess you answered your own question by mentioning the "whole sociopath thing".

Again, I don't understand why somebody hasn't gone after Soriano yet especially when we were reportedly willing to eat 90% of his contract.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point? If so, no real point in going further in conversation. Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either. We are better now at this point than last season at this point. We have Rizzo now. Baker. Feldman. Our best pitching prospect. A new potential closer. Castro signed long term. Solar. This time last year we did have Dempster and Marshall and Cashner. I'll say we have gotten better at this point than this point last year Rizzo, Baker, and Feldman will probably underproduce LaHair, Dempster, and Maholm for 1st half production. (obviously Rizzo is an upgrade long-term) Castro signed long term is great, but doesn't add or detract from the 2013 Cubs. Our best pitching prospect and Solar are great, but neither will be helping this year's team.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point? If so, no real point in going further in conversation. Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.

From MLBTR: After picking up Mike Adams and John Lannan, Matt Gelb of the Philadelphia Inquirer looks at what is left for the Phillies to spend on an outfield upgrade. By Gelb's math, the Phillies could sign an outfielder with an average annual salary of approximately $7MM and be right up against the tax threshold. Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#EMd9JXptWE71BcCY.99 Soriano could certainly fit into that financial situation.

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive. It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency. First, Baker and Feldman are middle to back of the rotation starters that hve question marks attached to them. As for doing more than a lot of teams in free agency, the other teams didn't start with a 100-loss team. We ended the season better than a 100 loss team, when you consider a pitcher like Garza coming back and Jeff S. not being shut down. I stand by that the Cubs have been more active than most teams in free agency, and not because they had to be due to how bad they are perceived to be. There are a bunch of middle road teams/close to contending teams that have literally done nothing so far. And like was said previously, it ain't over yet. I'd be shocked if the Cubs don't make one or two more nice moves. It won't be of the Josh Hamilton kind, so people will dismiss it or forget about it quickly when the Cubs miss out on one of their targets, but whatever. So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

I'm wondering at this point if nobody really wants Soriano or if our asking price as far as player return goes is too high. It has to be the we're asking too much. Also, the latest rumors speculate on the Cubs picking up a lot less money than earlier rumors of 90%+ of his contract. If the earlier rumors were true, I thought GMs had to be crazy not to take Soriano at $2million per year.

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive. It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency. First, Baker and Feldman are middle to back of the rotation starters that hve question marks attached to them. As for doing more than a lot of teams in free agency, the other teams didn't start with a 100-loss team.

The Astros are still out there leading to caravan to prospectville They don't count because they don't have a "plan".

Look at the bright side - with every trade that happens and every FA signing, we get closer to realizing the plan of getting the first draft pick.

2. The difference between losing 84 and 94 games lies in the entertainment value. I'd like my favorite team to have a chance to win games sometimes. . No offense, but that's such a meatballish way of looking at things. If this team has no chance of making the playoffs, all else being equal, give me the benefits of losing more games. Furthermore, I was actually pretty entertained last season. - At the beginning, we had some new faces to watch to see how they'd do. We also had Starlin Castro, of course. - We then had a stretch of like 25 games where we had the best record in MLB. - We had Rizzo come up. - The trade deadline that made for an interesting time. - We had Jackson and Vitters called up to watch. Obviously you must be easy to entertain. Most of the 2nd half of the season was unwatchable, especially when it became apparent that Jackson and Vitters were totally overmatched at the ML level.

Well, it is what it is. Unless Theo had Harry’s magic wand, how were the Cubs gonna win in 2012? & I guess it depends on what your definition of winning is. Do you want to spend your assets on a team that has to eek into the playoffs & hope to luck out, or do you want a team built to be a perennial contender? That’s an easy question for me… Nevertheless, I don’t think much will make you happy. You’re gonna be bellyaching about most things anyway. And the Cubs are going to suck in 2013 (and possibly 2014). Is there a guarantee that in 2015 and beyond we will be perennial contenders? Much of this discussion is based on most (or all) of the Cubs' top prospects becoming solid ML players by 2015 so that we can plug them into the lineup or trade them for superstars (Price, Felix, Upton, etc.). The offseason isn't over yet, but the FO needs to find young players to start filling holes for 2015 now. My opinion on Theo is that he was brought in to get us to (or win) the WS and not to be a perennial contender in a weak division with a large market team. And yes, I know the playoffs are a crapshoot.

Good point but I'd rather have them looking spend the money on who they really want instead of hendry spending money on whoever is there. It's also another reason that we have to build up our entire system. We have to have prospects to build, and prospects to deal for guys others that are not yet free agents. If we go back to just trying to buy a team and spend like a drunken sailor, we can compete pretty quickly but for how long and a what cost. This is the most proven front office we have had since dallas green, they won't sign everyone the set out for but we have to believe they will put their best effort out there. right now if you look at sanchez, Cubs or tigers..really? chance to win a lot vs being 2-3 years away. I agree, but again our best prospects are under 21 and in the low minors. Hopefully (but not likely) they all reach the potential we see in them. As for "spending money on whoever is there", that's what GMs do if they don't get the FA they wanted. So if Theo loses 1-2 of the players he really wants to some other team in 2014 or 2015, he will be forced to buy whoever is there. He has a good plan, but it all goes down the tubes pretty quickly if some of these prospects don't make it.

My biggest concern is that when it comes time to spend and make big trades, we may be disappointed again. When the discussion about hiring Theo happened, I posted that many posters were acting like all of the other teams were going roll over and let Theo sign or trade for whoever he wanted. With all of the TV money floating around, there's going to be a lot of teams overspending in 2014-2015 on FAs. Also, names like Stanton, Price, Felix, etc. as trade bit are going to have a lot of GMs lined up to acquire them.

It would clear out the minors in quality if not quantity. Price or Felix are going to cost you 2-3 top prospects plus 1-2 mid-level prospects. Upton would cost at least 1 top and 2 mid-level, while Stanton would probably be the same as Price or Felix.

It's definitely better. But I was hoping when we hired Epstein that we'd be aiming for slightly higher than "well, it's not as bad as the Tribune/MacPhail/Hendry era." I think it's 1,000,000x better. But I guess if you have tunnel vision and are only looking at how many losses they had last year, I could see how you wouldn't be a fan of what they're doing. I guess you're entitled to your opinion about being 1,000,000x better, but there is still a lot of uncertainty about the future. There are still a lot of question marks on the 2013 team and all of our top prospects are still very young and in the low minors. Also, the minors are severly lacking in pitching prospects for 2014 and beyond.

I just hope we're not reading this same tweet for 2-3 more years.

Not really. BOSTON -- The Boston Red Sox made a two-year, $25 million offer to free agent right-hander Ryan Dempster but were turned down by the pitcher and his agent, Craig Landis, according to a source. Dempster is believed to be seeking a three-year deal and reportedly is being wooed by the Chicago Cubs and the Milwaukee Brewers. From MLBTR: The Brewers, Red Sox and Royals are the "three main teams" looking at Ryan Dempster, reports Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune (Twitter link). This would seem to eliminate the Cubs, who we recently heard weren't negotiating with Dempster Don't you just love conflicting rumors.