Backtobanks

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.

I agree, it would nice to add a long-term solution to the rotation. I think Hellickson is overrated though (then again, it may just be Tampa's philosophy to pitch to contact and not care about K's, given Garza's massive spike when he got here). I just used Hellickson as an example (any of the other names would have worked too). My point is that I think the FO needs to start filling some holes for the long term. Not only is there a good chance Garza plus one of the FA pitchers gets traded at the deadline, but Soriano, DeJesus, Camp (if resigned), and Marmol could be gone by then (or sooner). That certainly leaves a ton of holes to start filling for 2014 and beyond.

I Think the FO ought to get down to the business of adding a SP that will be around when the Cubs might be a decent team. There are names like Bauer, Hellickson, Masterson, Delgado, etc. that are being put out there as available. Adding filler like Liriano, Marcum, McCarthy, etc. just keeps perpetuating the problem because it likely that Garza plus Liriano/Marcum/McCarthy will be traded at the deadline. Making a deal for someone like Hellickson gives you a starting four of Shark, Hellickson, Viscaino, and Wood for 2014 and beyond. Use the money to fill some of the other gaping holes on the team.

Masterson anyone? Cleveland could be an interesting option as a trade partner. Masterson, Chisenhall, and possibly Choo could fill important roles for the Cubs.

Paul Sullivan in today's Tribune suggested/speculated that Coco Crisp could be a target for the Cubs. If that's true, hopefully a deal would be expanded to try to get some young pitching from the A's.

And the Pirates and Brewers probably won't have any good seasons during that time, either. So we tank 3 seasons, then split the division evenly with the Cardinals for the next six. Congratulations, Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, you just matched Jim Hendry's term. The Brewers are likely to decline. They have holes now, and purged their system over the past 4 years so they don't have the means to fill them. And let's dispense with predicting the number of potential playoff appearances and focus on the number of wins. If the Cubs win 90-95+ games each year for 6-7 consecutive years, that's success. If it leads to only 2-3 playoff appearances in that span, that'd still be a much more successful run than the one Hendry had. You can't control what other teams do, but if you're consistently winning 90+, you're getting it done. Hendry did not do this. First, I find it inconceivable that you are going to win 90+ games consistently for 6-7 years and only make the playoffs 2-3 times in that span. That being said, Theo and Co. were brought in to get us to the World Series and hopefully win it, so I would consider winning teams that don't make the playoffs as a failure after our "rebuild" is complete.

From MLBTR: The majority of the execs see Cabrera winding up with a one-year deal in the $2-$5MM range to audition himself. One exec could see him getting $10-$12MM while another said he could possibly get one year at $8-10MM Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#E5q6HjTEb4H2eYfi.99 How about signing Cabrera for a club-friendly one year deal to play CF and let Jackson start in AAA.

Chill, bro. They've got this. For the first time in quite awhile, we're putting together a solid minor league system and we have money coming off of the payroll. I pretty much like everything that Ricketts/Theo have done. I'll like what they're doing once they put together a solid team at the ML level.

The Giants would surely have to eat more than half of Lincecum’s remaining salary to get a trade done, but that might be worth it if they are convinced that he won’t bounce back. The 28-year-old was shelled for four earned runs on six hits and three walks in his NLCS Game 4 start against the Cardinals on Thursday night. Lincecum is scheduled to become a free agent for the first time in his career after the 2013 season. Maybe it's time to try talking Soriano into thinking SF isn't so bad after all. A trade centered around Lincecum and Soriano might be interesting after making sure Lincecum is healthy.

While many posters may be curious as to what he does well, apparently it doesn't matter as long as his boss is impressed enough to give him 3 more years.

Do we get compensation for the FO departure? How about Brenley's? :lol:

The thought of young pitching from the Braves is a great idea, but I'm not sure what players we could offer. The suggestion of taking Uggla's contract doesn't seem likely since the Braves will lose offense with the retirement of Chipper and Bourn's free agency.

Everything I read indicated no one in the media had any idea. There was a whole of of speculating, though. The fact that only one team bid near that and other teams like the Yankees (those cheapskates), the Blue Jays (one of, if not the supposed favorites), the Cubs (who outbid all but Texas) and others bid in the same range says a lot more about what the bid was expected to be than what you might have read from media pundits. What likely happened was that there was an expectation of the range among executives, and Texas just decided to blow it out of the water. It seems fairly certain that's what happened, given what we know now. The notion that Texas was the only team seriously interested is ridiculous, and that's what you'd have to believe if you think the Cubs' bid wasn't serious. Unless you just want to interpret things in the way that makes Theo and Jed look as bad as possible. Maybe the media didn't have any idea, but your 2nd paragraph includes "what likely happened", "fairly certain", and "unless you (I) want to interpret things in the way that makes Theo and Jed look as bad as possible". My assumption is that our FO bid what they thought was a reasonable amount and weren't even close to the winning bid. BTW, I've read articles that stated we weren't the 2nd highest bid - not that it matters.

Yeah, I remember the Theo regime showing interest in him as well. Like I said, not really a criticism, just thinking again how nice it would've been if we'd have been able to work something out for him. The Darvish thing still annoys me, simply because everything pointed to $20 million not being enough (lots of rumors that 1-2 teams were willing to go as high as Daisuke money or higher) and everything also pointed to Darvish being a considerably better bet than Daisuke (or maybe any other Japanese pitcher that had previously come over here) to be really good. Still though, it was a blind bid, making it really hard to criticize not winning. I hated that we passed on Cespedes at the time and I hate it more now. That and, to a much lesser degree, passing on Wei-Yin Chen are the most frustrating non-moves so far. There was a lot of conjecture about what the Darvish bid would be, but in the end it turned out that you had Texas where they were and the Cubs leading everyone else bunched at a lower range (including the Jays, who were very interested and considered to be the favorites by many). This at least tells us that it almost certainly wasn't a "token" bid, and that Theo/Jed made what they believed to be a very competitive bid. That is unless you believe Texas was the only team that wanted him, which I sure don't. If the consensus was the the bidding was going to be in the 15-20MM range (which it seems the consensus among non-Texas execs was) it seems a stretch to have expected the Cubs to go to 50MM+. The Cespedes miss was much less forgivable. If you're the Chicago Cubs, you don't get outbid by the Oakland A's in an open process. Part of me wonders if they were given a chance to counter (given how aggressive they were in paying for the other Cubans.), but it seems unlikely Cespedes and his agent would neglect to ask the Cubs if they wanted to match or beat the A's offer. It was a bad miss. Everything I read before the Darvish winning bid was announced expected it to be around $48 million.

Your plan looks like it might have a contender by 2027.

73 wins this year - did I miss something? The point you are making is what I've been saying all along - the timeline bothers me, especially if any of our "sure thing" 18-20 yr olds don't pan out. It's not easy going from 190+ losses over 2 years to pushing for the playoffs the next followed by a dominant run in 2015. Theo needs to start filling holes this offseason with players that can contribute in the future (Upton, Chisenhall, etc.).

Castro, Rizzo, Castillo, and Shark might be future contributors. Jackson, Stewart, Valbuena, and most of the bullpen kids certainly don't look like they offer much.

We haven't had low expectations since 03. The 04 team won 89 games and was booed on the regular. Why do you have expectations that b2b will deal with reality/facts? You are far too optimistic. I'm not the one having trouble dealing with reality. Everybody outside of Chicago identifies the Cubs as a low expectation team with a party atmosphere going on in the bleachers daily. The fans show up every year despite losing or mediocre seasons. Players make lots of extra money for personal appearances. Players who manage to play decently over a few years become lifetime celebrities over the years and become a permanent part of Cubs' folklore. That's why the players hate to leave the Cubs.