Backtobanks

And Garza. And Barney. And the trade bait that got Rizzo, Wood, Torreyes, Vizcaino and Lout. And that 4-win LFer we put out there. And the entire low minors draft class that owned the NWL lists. But other than a middle infield, a middle-of-the-order bat, three-fifths of a rotation, a bunch of trade bait and a wave of prospects, there was a completely blank slate for St. Theo to work his magic. On the Fangraphs top 15, our current regime inherited 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. And it didn't exactly take a wizard to turn the top two draft picks into top-15 organizational guys. It speaks more of our current regime that nearly every worthwhile major leaguer is a legacy. i like this constant distortion where whenever the Theo regime turns a mediocre reliever into a frontline starter or damaged goods into a franchise player, full credit goes to Hendry for giving him that player- "we traded Greg Rohan for Tommy Hanson? well done, Hendry!" and what a laugh, seeing Barney as like the third name listed..."i fully stocked the cupboards for you; there should be a can of Hormel chili and maybe a granola bar in there" What about the constant distortion that everything Theo has done has been of his making. The plan was always to turn Shark into a starter. Any GM (including Hendry) would have made the deal trading Cashner for Rizzo because the Padres had already committed themselves to Alonso. The cupboard wasn't as bare as some of you are making it out to be.

"Extremely little" until it's time to drool over Castro, Baez, etc. And what else? One great ML asset and one in the low minors. Oh, and Shark. Other than that, it was a wasteland. Love the "etc.", as if there was anything else of note. He left something, but it was pretty [expletive] far from a foundation. It speaks volumes of Hendry's regime that nearly all of our top prospects have been added in the past 12 months. Except for Castro, Rizzo (who we got for Cashner), and all of the other prospects we received by trading Marshall, Dempster, etc.

They must've been bad for a long time to build that up. I have always thought that teams like the Cardinals and others don't focus so much on who to pick as much as they focus on how to develop. I am sure there is some great debate about this subject somewhere. So you're telling me we don't have to suck for 2-3 years to make sure we get top draft picks?

Yeah, the Cards are pretty consistent as opposed to the Cubs, Pirates, and Brewers.

He could become the next Tuffy Rhodes.

Really hard to predict what will happen in 2015. Obviously that's what the FO is hoping for, but we still have very little in the way of pitching for the future. Our offensive players look promising, but are still very young and in the low minors. Our big advantage is money assuming Theo decides to start spending it.

Obviously nobody's going to give up a top prospect for LaHair, but I still think some ML team could find a spot for him as a platoon DH/1B. LaHair vs. RHP - .291/.362/.503/.865 Soriano vs LHP - .260/.342/.489/.831 Rizzo vs RHP - .318/.383/.508/.892 Dunn vs RHP - .211/.348/.469/.817 Chris Davis vs RHP - .271/.333/.502/.836 Doumit vs RHP - .288/.335/.488/.823 These are examples of batters who much better facing one type of pitcher over the other.

Still can't believe he doesn't have some value as a platoon DH/1B.

I'm most interested in trying to fill the rotation with younger pitchers who could possibly turn it around and fill a need long term rather than the likes of Marcum/Blanton/etc. for a year or two. As you stated, the A's young pitchers, Bauer, Hellickson, Delgado, Jurrjens, Porcello, etc. are better options than middle aged filler. We already know that we're going to suck next year anyhow. I don't want middle aged filler (still would be OK with signing 1 guy just to be there for the inevitable Garza trade). But young filler isn't much better. I know the 2013 rotation isn't going to be good enough. But I want hope that the 2014 rotation might be. If Porcello is in the 2013 rotation, I know that his spot in the 2014 rotation isn't likely to be any better than average. If a guy like Bauer or Delgado are brought in, the 2013 rotation still won't be good enough, but 2014 gives you some hope with Samardzija, Bauer/Delgado, Vizcaino being possibly set in 3/5 of the rotation. Maybe its too much to ask given the Cubs limited amount of tradeable assets, but it's the only realistic direction I can see working out for the positive. Why do you know this? We allegedly have offers sitting on the table for a few pitchers... McCarthy and Liriano among them. Samardzija, Garza, McCarthy, 2 of Baker/Liriano/Wood/Vizcaino looks like a rotation that could be anywhere from very good to awesome (if things go right at the back end) to me. It wouldn't be any better than the rotation for the first half of 2012. Assuming things go well, you trade off at least Garza (maybe more) and you're back to having a mediocre staff for 2014.

Does it really matter? If he can be had for cheap, I'd take it regardless of how he is defensively. I totally agree. If we can pick up any young players cheaply that have the potential to be productive, then go for it. If it doesn't work, so be it.

I'm most interested in trying to fill the rotation with younger pitchers who could possibly turn it around and fill a need long term rather than the likes of Marcum/Blanton/etc. for a year or two. As you stated, the A's young pitchers, Bauer, Hellickson, Delgado, Jurrjens, Porcello, etc. are better options than middle aged filler. We already know that we're going to suck next year anyhow.

Did you see what the Cubs trotted out to the mound during the 2nd half of the season?

Now that the Tigers have signed Hunter, maybe we could swing a deal to get Andy Dirks and Porcello. Offer them Barney + ??????.

Gotta get that top draft pick.

Masterson and Chisenhall in a package deal would be a great move.

that's horribly embarrassing for every other team if true. but i doubt it is. Why the hell weren't the Cubs in on this? Like they have money to spend on other players? I know OF is probably not the Cubs biggest need, but collecting assets is. Melky at that price is an asset, just like Scott Baker. Actually, it is one of their biggest. Who said the Cubs weren't in on him? Apparently they weren't "in on him" enough if he went somwhere else for that money.

After the All Star game he only had 109 AB, which could account for some loss of production. Obviously he's best suited for a platoon player with .291/.362/.503/.865 against righties for the whole season.

From MLBTR: The Orioles are telling teams that their priorities in the trade market are first base, left field, and DH according to MLB.com's Brittany Ghiroli (on Twitter). GM Dan Duquette said several clubs match up well with their needs. Sounds like we could fill all of those needs with LaHair and Soriano.

Actually this quote is almost exactly what I've posted dozens of times and not "Boy wonder sucks and doesn't know what he's doing. My evidence is that they lost 101 games." My argument has always been a disagreement with Theo's timeline. 2012 was historically bad and 2013 doesn't look a whole lot better. Most of our future players probably won't be in the ML until 2015, that leaves 2014 questionable. Now is the time to try to start filling some holes with young players that are rumored to be available in trades.

Meh, b2b already did that, granted, probably not as effectively as Kyle would, but still. Nothing like insulting posts when you have nothing intelligent to say on a topic.

That still doesn't address bearjuice's point as to wanting to be entertained. The second half of 2012 was unbearable to watch.

I don't see how McCarthy speaks to that plan when Garza is the same age and is considered trade bait when he proves he's healthy. Your definition of "a semblance of an effort" is different than mine because I think they need to start filling the multitude of holes they have now (and project to have in the next couple of years) with the young players that are available or rumored to be available. We've talked about the young pitchers available, but Chisenhall, possibly Reddick, and the Uptons are available. Jackson and Vitters could turn it around, but they certainly didn't show anything this year.

If the Cubs are signing 3 somewhat high priced FA starters, they better be contenders. No reason to spend that much money NOT winning and not building for the future. As opposed to what though? If things clicked, that group of 3 could help turn the rotation into something formidable and if the offense improved a bit, who knows? Maybe we're in the Wild Card hunt at the ASB. But, it's likely those things won't happen, and we're selling off. I guess Villanueva gets a 2-3 year deal. McCarthy and Liriano? One and an option? If we want short term guys, may as well get the best we can get, right? If one pitches his ass off, maybe we get a nice haul in return. But with as low as the payroll is, those 3 could be added and we'd still likely have 10-15 mill to use just to make it to a 100 mill and that(hopefully) isn't an issue, even if we ARE rebuilding. Frankly I think this approach would set the Cubs back a year. This isn't the Pirates who are desperate to compete and don't have long term resources to do so. You can't preach building for the future and spend on 3 pitchers who won't be around when u realistically can win. Gotta have retreads to field a team, but for every DeJesus there needs to be a Rizzo. I like Liriano but he is not going to help lead this team to the playoffs ever. The Cubs need to add future pieces while still being respectable as a franchise. That's what I posted in another topic. Some of Oakland's young pitching, Hellickson, Bauer, Delgado, Masterson, etc. are said to be available. Add one of these young guys and 1-2 of the FAs (Marcum/McCarthy/Liriano/Villenueva/etc.) and you have a decent rotation with depth for next year and you have Shark, Viscaino, young pitcher from trade, Wood and whoever is left over after the trade deadline (Garza/Marcum/McCarthy/Liriano/Villenueva) for 2014.

It may not be a guarantee, but it certainly looks like the MO of our FO. If your target date to be a good team is 2015 (which seems to be what they're shooting for), then keeping someone like Marcum/McCarthy/Liriano through 2014 doesn't make sense if someone offers some decent prospects. It looks like the MO.....based on Paul Maholm. And even if the "target date to be a good team" is 2015, you would absolutely have interest in a 3 year deal with a SP and keeping him for the duration so you aren't replacing a rotation cog right when you're planning to be good. This what I mean, taking a single decision and jumping through logical hoops to fit every move afterwards into the same category is silly. You're the one that posted "every FA SP the Cubs sign for fewer than 17 years is just gonna get dealt at the deadline", not me. My point is that the FO seems likely to trade any ML assets that don't really fit the plan for a young, contending team in 2015 and beyond. That includes Garza, Soriano, DeJesus, Marmol, Camp (if resigned), and any of the McCarthy/Marcum/Liriano/etc. that they sign.

It may not be a guarantee, but it certainly looks like the MO of our FO. If your target date to be a good team is 2015 (which seems to be what they're shooting for), then keeping someone like Marcum/McCarthy/Liriano through 2014 doesn't make sense if someone offers some decent prospects.