jersey cubs fan

How about one?

Well you can offer your opinion as to what that report states, but the bottom line is that the Cubs weren't even close to the winning bid. you don't know that

Andrew Marchand reported the Cubs bid around $20 million. There were other reports that the Cubs' bid was "substantial." The likelihood is that nobody actually knows the Cubs' bid other than that it was lower than the Rangers'. The report you quoted could just as easily only have known those three bids and no others rather than intentionally posting the top 3 bids by amount. How would they know 3 bids and not any others? Some front offices are more apt to talk than others.

If you are trying to factor in the compensation, why would you make it so the return for Garza "seems a bit much"? Why wouldn't you make it seem a bit weak?

I think they may end up relegated.

Who is putting out that note and why did they insist on including his agency's name?

Yeah, it's the "kind" of move I'd like. A reliever approaching free agency for a younger starting pitcher and prospects. The specific people involved make me a little less enthusiastic, and I would have preferred something. But the moves, for all intents and purposes is solid.

We won't be ready to win in time to get enough value out of that contract. The outlook clearly looks bleak now, but do really think that Epstein and Hoyer came here to keep the team looking like it does not for the next 3 years? It was a joke, based on all the nonsensical ramblings of people who don't want to acquire players who cost money.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt they use WAR when determining arbitration awards. Also, are those 1st year arbitration players at all germane to the discussion?

And going up. Wood isn't going to be making anything close to that in his final two arbitration years. Unless he sucks he will. The common assumption for Matt Garza in this, his next-to-last arbitration year, is about $8 million. In what world is $8m not close to $10m? And it's the final year where he'll market value. The final two years will not be cheap. That was the point.

And going up. Wood isn't going to be making anything close to that in his final two arbitration years. Unless he sucks he will.

He'll be getting market value, which is expensive.

We won't be ready to win in time to get enough value out of that contract.

I'm confused - who are you talking about with this comment? If it's Wood, as I think, then I agree and that's why I said the higher upside prospect would be much more cost efficient than Wood would be when the Cubs are actually trying to contend again. Wood. I keep hearing about 5 cost controlled years when in reality it's just 5 team controlled years, with a couple cheap ones and the rest will be very expensive. Even if he's mediocre he'll be awarded a lot of money in arbitration. That's why non-tenders exist.

Like gooney said, I don't think Theo is doing his best to ensure that we don't win in 2012, I just don't see a path to contention at this point. This team needed a decent amount of help to make it capable of contending next year, it's gotten worse since the offseason began, and most of the impact FAs/trade targets are off the market. If you see a way to make this team one that can win 82-85+ games next year, I'd love to hear it. I just don't see it without a huge amount of luck. Maybe if they get enough gritty gamers they can place all of their defenders directly in front of the hitter so any balls hit will simply smash into one guy and they will have 6 others available to pick it up and throw the guy out at first. You won't give up any runs and even this lineup should be able to score enough to win when you shutout the opponent.

Another two weeks? I don't see why not.

The best thing about Wood is that we control his cost for the next 5 years. Problem is, since we're clearly rebuilding for at least 2012 and maybe longer, his best asset becomes less important. I don't see any way this team contends in 2012 at this point and unless we get a few breaks (sign Prince and Cespedes and hope Cespedes hits his ceiling by 2013 would be a good start) 2013 is looking pretty unlikely. So we're looking at 3 cost controlled years for Wood when we're actually trying to contend and with a very limited ceiling, I just don't think that's worth Marshall. The prospects could make all the difference, though. That's why I would have preferred a high upside prospect - he'd be much more cost effective when we're trying to contend than Wood will be. Those last two years probably won't be all that cost effective, unless he keeps getting better and better.

He's not doing it in the literal sense, and he's not putting a 100 loss out there or anything. He's just done extremely little to increase their chances to win next season, when they needed to do a lot.

The end result numbers were good, but the underlying peripherals suggest he got lucky as hell and it would be unwise to expect anything close to similar next season.

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Sharks forward Martin Havlat will miss up to eight weeks following surgery Thursday to repair a partial tear in a tendon in his left hamstring. San Jose general manager Doug Wilson said the team was prepared for the worst after Havlat injured himself jumping over the Sharks' bench during Saturday's 3-2 win over the Edmonton Oilers.

Jesus Christ. No chip sherlock. Obviously this move doesn't torch 2012. It's the lack of other moves that torched 2012.

FSL or SL, sure. If the performance certainty is nothing to write home about you are just unnecessarily putting a ceiling on the value if you insist on MLB ready. 2012 is almost completely gone. If you are serious about acquiring assets to help you be a contender in the future, then get serious about it and don't chicken out by insisting the guy give you some nice innings today. Sign Maholm for that purpose and trade your assets for the future. I think you're really overstating the potential difference between Wood and the hypothetical preferred return(again, who would that be?), or maybe just underestimating attrition. Wood's been a 3 win pitcher in a full season's worth of MLB starts prior to the age of 25. When you think about how likely it is that any prospect that's not in MLB or on the cusp exceeds that value, you have to realize that you're needing Strasburgian levels of potential in order to have a greater value than someone like Wood. You asked me what I'd prefer. I'm telling you what I'd prefer. I see no reason to overvalue "MLB ready" given the current environment and would prefer more potential future impact instead of half assing this offseason to try and solidify a 77 win team. I wanted them to actually try to win in 2012, but if they aren't going to do that I'd prefer they actually get aggressive about the future. I'm not saying getting Wood for Marshall is a horrible deal, I'm saying I would have preferred something else.

Too risky.

Yeah, me too. But I'll have to settle for just getting drunk with my brother since my dad will definitely be shopping.

Lesser compensation? We got a 24-year-old starting pitcher with a career FIP- of 94, and we have him for five cost-controlled years. It'd have to be one *heck* of a A-ball prospect to compete with that in value. I'd like a heck of a prospect, yes.