Backtobanks

Really? I see it coming. Hoyer and Theo have both said the youngsters are going to have to experience growing pains and they need to be given a longer leash, to see if they can overcome the obstacles. They've hinted at watching the them struggle and it'll be that much better once things start to click. Personally, I could see that team winning more games than this current one, but admittedly, it's out there to get a top 3 pick and huge IFA money for 2014. I hope you're not one of those posters who thought this year's team would be better than last year's team.

As I've posted before, now is the time to start filling some holes for 2013 or else this rebuild will take 6+ years. Nobody's talking about stripping the whole minor league system for Headley, but Theo ought to be making a serious offer. Pull back if the asking price is too high, but holding a spot open for the possibility that Vitters/Lake might be okay is stupid. If Vitters/Lake do look good, then you have trade bait to acquire pitching.

You replace Campana in the lineup for Rizzo and Valbuena/Stewart for Headley and suddenly it's starting to look like a ML lineup that might score some runs. Obviously any other trades have to focus on young, ready/near ready rotation pitchers.

By the time we're ready to compete Castro, Rizzo, and Soler might be 30.

From MLBTR: •The Nationals have been poking around for a right-handed hitting corner infielder to replace Mark DeRosa, who is hurt and declining. John Lannan has improved his trade stock by pitching better of late in Triple-A.

Even if Youk hits as poorly as he has been, it's still a big upgrade from what the Sox have been getting out of 3B. This was a no-brainer for Williams.

Bringing him up too soon might result in winning some games and losing a shot at the #1 draft choice.

Cubs are 24-47 when they face a ML team. :lol:

Probably. But between Simmons still being unproven, Chipper being very injury prone, and them possibly someone to pair with Uggla at second/third when Chipper retires, he could have decent value to them. To echo what everyone else (and you, basically) are saying, he's more valued by us than he is to the rest of the league, and I'm only really in favor of trading him with others to sweeten a possible return. Pairing him with a pitcher to the Braves and all those young arms could be the way to do it (obviously, given the right return.) It had better really sweeten the return or else you just created another hole to fill on a team that has a ton of holes to fill now. If it gets us a pitcher that has a reasonable chance of slotting into the rotation over the next 3-5 years, I'm more than ok with putting some combination of Stewart/Vitters/Valbuena/Lake at third and second through next year to get a look at them (and by then we'll know plenty more about the future of guys like Baez, Marco Hernandez, and DeVoss). Yeah, as long as you're satisfied with 5 more years of plugging players in to assess where we are at point. Trading Dempster, Garza, and Soriano need to get us at least some players that will be at the ML level next year. All of this talk about 4-5 years from now doesn't account for the fact that young players might need a year or two at the ML level to become impact players.

Probably. But between Simmons still being unproven, Chipper being very injury prone, and them possibly someone to pair with Uggla at second/third when Chipper retires, he could have decent value to them. To echo what everyone else (and you, basically) are saying, he's more valued by us than he is to the rest of the league, and I'm only really in favor of trading him with others to sweeten a possible return. Pairing him with a pitcher to the Braves and all those young arms could be the way to do it (obviously, given the right return.) It had better really sweeten the return or else you just created another hole to fill on a team that has a ton of holes to fill now.

I think it's going to go on a bit longer. Unless Dempster is going to the Red Sox or something, the meticulous nature of the new regime means it's going to take some time for them to decide what package they like. As fans, we look at the other team's top prospects, pick out the guys who are at positions we need and don't seem like too much to ask for, and call it a trade. I'm imagining the new front office treating this trade deadline like a second draft. Weeks of scouting, video breakdowns, discussion, and asking anyone and everyone who knows these kids about their character and work ethic. While I agree that's how I suspect they operate, my hope is it's been going on for a while already, when it comes to teams with interest in Dempster. If there's more than one team with an offer on the table right now, I don't want anything to screw it up. The longer this goes on, I just think the less we wind up with. Yeah, if this FO is as sharp as everyone has made it out to be, they should have a good idea of whatever return they want to get from Dempster, Garza, and Soriano. It's been obvious since early May that Garza and Dempster are available. Soriano took a little longer to raise his value.

Olney really going out on a limb here. At least he said maybe. :lol:

Better to spend it on possible future talent than sitting in Ricketts' pocket.

Put him in a package for Headley.

My problem with the FO is exactly that - what the expected timeline to be close to contending (or actually a contender) actually is. When Theo signed a 5-year contract, I expected a serious contending team within 3-4 years. Now it seems we're talking about waiting until 2016 to see whether our prospects actually can play at the ML level. Rizzo and Soler look like "sure things", but everybody else is a maybe. Hopefully some of these trades (Garza, Dempster, Soriano, etc.) will bring young players that have some ML experience and success so that we can plug them in this year. More 20-year old prospects strengthens the minor league system and increases the chances that some minor leaguers will eventually help the team, but we need to start filling holes in 2013 and not in 2017. You really think they won't a single top pitcher/player for 4-5 more years? They won't wait until all of their current 20 year olds are proven in the majors before signing FAs, but they do need to acquire some more young talent. I'd bet they are improved next year and competitive by 2014. Let's hope they're improved next year considering we're on course for 100+ losses this year. If you're really looking at their best prospects (Soler, Baez, Almora,etc.) to begin making the roster at ML level, you're looking at 2015. Giving them a year or two to adjust puts you into the 2016-2017 range. I'm not saying the FO won't sign a single top pitcher/player for 4-5 more years, but you won't know whether these guys can make an impact for 4-5 years.

My problem with the FO is exactly that - what the expected timeline to be close to contending (or actually a contender) actually is. When Theo signed a 5-year contract, I expected a serious contending team within 3-4 years. Now it seems we're talking about waiting until 2016 to see whether our prospects actually can play at the ML level. Rizzo and Soler look like "sure things", but everybody else is a maybe. Hopefully some of these trades (Garza, Dempster, Soriano, etc.) will bring young players that have some ML experience and success so that we can plug them in this year. More 20-year old prospects strengthens the minor league system and increases the chances that some minor leaguers will eventually help the team, but we need to start filling holes in 2013 and not in 2017.

If you signed a FA and he blocks a prospect, you trade one of them for something you need. You will never know exactly who your prospects are in the majors. My point is to let these guys come up and actually play and see who they are, then you add FA around them. Then you know exactly who they are and exactly what you need. And what if there is a weak FA crop when Theo decides to spend? Or if the time is right, then Theo can pass out Sorianoesque contracts and overpay middle relievers. FAs who are reasonably young and talented (Hamels, Upton, etc.) need to be signed when they're available, not when we wait for another 5-6 years to figure out whether our prospects are able to play at the ML level. Or you look more than a SINGLE year ahead. That may have been Hendry's MO, but I think Theo may, just may, be a tad different. That's exactly my point. Players like Hamels, Upton, etc. are young enough (and are going to demand multiple year contracts) to help with a winning team in the future or at least help determine which positions still need to be filled.

HENDRY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT Another expected brilliant reponse. For someone who hates Hendry, all of your responses seem to include his name.

If you signed a FA and he blocks a prospect, you trade one of them for something you need. You will never know exactly who your prospects are in the majors. My point is to let these guys come up and actually play and see who they are, then you add FA around them. Then you know exactly who they are and exactly what you need. And what if there is a weak FA crop when Theo decides to spend? Or if the time is right, then Theo can pass out Sorianoesque contracts and overpay middle relievers. FAs who are reasonably young and talented (Hamels, Upton, etc.) need to be signed when they're available, not when we wait for another 5-6 years to figure out whether our prospects are able to play at the ML level.

No use criticizing Jaramillo or his methods. The bottom line is that all hitting (or pitching) coaches help certain hitters (or pitchers) and doesn't help others. The best coaches affect a higher percentage, but it's certainly not anywhere near 100%. Rudy has had success for a long time and a record he should be proud of.

Darvish is the one player that they certainly should have gone after. The winning bid was almost exactly what everyone was predicting, so Theo could have gone higher than the predictions. Cespedes also was attainable. I wasn't a big fan of the Zambrano trade, but it was a forgone conclusion that they wanted him gone. I would have tried for a deal involving Headley from SD instead of Stewart at 3B. They might have been a bad team this year, but they would have had a few more holes filled for next year and beyond.

I still have issues with the idea that the only two options were: awful now and great later or mediocre now and mediocre later I'm not convinced we couldn't have built a better product today by adding assets that would help us be better in the short term without hurting us long term (Cespedes, keep Z, put together a better than awful bench, etc). I have full confidence the Theo regime will make this organization and team great in time, but I think it's misleading to assume the previously mentioned were the only two options we had. I totally agree. It gets back to the idea that whatever Theo does has to be the right way. NO IT DOESN'T. This is seriously the stupidest tangent you've ever gone on, and that's impressive. You've for some reason built up this inane idea that people don't given Hendry enough credit, so that's mutated into how everyone blindly loves the new FO. What is even your point in all of this? You don't want Theo can co. running the Cubs? I do think that the Theo Koolaide has been devoured by many of the posters here and yes, they are blind when it comes to the FO. I have posted often that I have confidence in Theo & Co. improving the organization, but I do think they are going to take far too long to be a serious contender. Also, I think that this year's club did not have to be this bad while the FO rebuilds. I know the Theo & Co. will own the city if they gets us to the WS (and especially if the win the WS). If they're going to get that much credit if (when) they produce a winner, then they deserve the blame for the crappy team (possibly historically crappy) they put on the field this year.

I still have issues with the idea that the only two options were: awful now and great later or mediocre now and mediocre later I'm not convinced we couldn't have built a better product today by adding assets that would help us be better in the short term without hurting us long term (Cespedes, keep Z, put together a better than awful bench, etc). I have full confidence the Theo regime will make this organization and team great in time, but I think it's misleading to assume the previously mentioned were the only two options we had. I totally agree. It gets back to the idea that whatever Theo does has to be the right way. There's no way the 2012 Cubs had to be this terrible.

Amen! The overwhelming majority of posters thought that this team would win more games than last year (71). I think it's pretty obvious that this team isn't going anywhere near 71 wins especially if they trade Soriano, Dempster, and Garza. As others have pointed out, a 100+ loss season postpones rebuilding into a contender by another 1-2 years.

Uh . . . no crap. Really, just like Soriano was untradable before he got in his hot streak. The long baseball season normalizes most players' performance. Just look at Garza and Dempster coming back to "normal".