Little Slide Rooter

this is basically the best overall offsason the cubs have ever had so far Lay off the crack pipe. Trust me it's bad. I mean what the hell did we get except question marks? This off season is a purge a gamble. Nothing more, nothing less. Yeah, we didn't sign so much as a middle reliever to a 3/18 deal. What's wrong with these maniacs?

As long as we're dumpster diving, why not scrape up he of the ninja slider? 2011 was't his finest, but he still seems to have solid stuff.

Maybe it was dressed up in women's clothing. I thought it was the cat to get the dog. It starts with the smallest(fly) and works its way up(horse). Perhaps we should break this intense debate off into it's own thread like the price haggling one. Think about what you said again. It starts with the smallest, and then sends in the next biggest to get the previous one. He was thinking like a Tiger or something [expletive]. that's right. She did die, so we'll never know her true motivation.

You probably shouldn't show her Bambie, Up, or Full Metal Jacket then.

Maybe it was dressed up in women's clothing. I thought it was the cat to get the dog. It starts with the smallest(fly) and works its way up(horse). Perhaps we should break this intense debate off into it's own thread like the price haggling one.

That really is steep. But like I said before, it could make teams who were thinking that Cespedes or Soler would cost about 8 mil/year think twice about the extent of ther pursuit of them.

Any team expecting to sign Oswalt likely expects I to be a 1 year deal with incentives and maybe an option. I don't think that missing out on him would cause teams to shell out what we want for Garza unless the price goes down. I still think that we should be shopping Dempster more aggressively to these teams looking for a mid rotation starter with a short term commitment. We wouldn't be getting anything like Turner, Castelannos, or even Smyly or Crosby, but could get something of value. I'd gladly eat as much of the contract as necessary for the right return.

Here's a thought. The Red Sox seem to really want another big league starter but don't want to pay for one. Would people be opposed to sending them Dempster rather than prospects? Needless to say, I'd expect to get something in return, but being a lost season, I'd rather give up Dempster than McNutt or Lake, if it were to come down to that. We already have plenty of rotation options, including the newly signed Rowland-Smith.

They redid the Top 10 recently... http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2012/2612879.html OK, so I'm confused. With the current top 10 being what it is, and Goldstein saying Concepcion would land at 6 with a ceiling as a fifth starter, what is Maples projected at? They have to be around the same age, and if GC is now higher on the list, wouldn't that suggest a higher ceiling? Or are they saying Maples might have the higher ceiling, but GC is currently more polished but with a lower ceiling? Just seems kind of odd given the (relative) buildup of Maples prior to the draft. I believe part of the confusion may be related to the list above being from Baseball America......Goldstein writes for Baseball Prospectus (he had Maples at #4 overall on his list). Looking at that list, 6 looks like the perfect spot, maybe 7. After that, we have a lot of intriguing guys, but nobody particularly inspiring. Lake and Vitters cold both be viewed as better though.

If we could get him for next to nothing, sure. Even if we could get him for a package similar to the one that got us Ian Stewart I'd take the chance. If they want anything remotely resembling top guys, no thanks.

But we also have enough available money that if Theo and Jed want one or both enough, they can afford to overpay, perhaps more so than the other suiters. Even if it was something like 8/80, while its a high risk it's not high enough that it would hurt us in the long run. 8/80 couldn't hurt us in the long run? Hurt? Ok, maybe. Cripple? No.

But we also have enough available money that if Theo and Jed want one or both enough, they can afford to overpay, perhaps more so than the other suiters. Even if it was something like 8/80, while its a high risk it's not high enough that it would hurt us in the long run.

I don't know the numbers, but from what I've heard it's much higher than expected and possibly a major league deal. Could drive up the price of Cespedes and Soler. Could this be a swallowed the cat to catch the dog situation in which it may have pushed Cespedes and/or Solers prices high enough that it could turn off most teams other than those with available money to burn, such as the Cubs? Over flexing our financial muscles so to speak? What a terrible expression - it implies that folks would rather have the dog. I'm only sort of kidding. I'm just trying to figure out what the hell it means. :-k Basically, that we overpaid one guy intentionally, for the purpose of driving another guys price high enough that other teams might lose interest. High risk, high reward. Everyone seems to say that Conepcion is a back of the rotation guy with so-so stuff, so that could be why we were as aggressive in pursuing him as we reportedly were. And who wouldn't rather have a dog than a cat? Dogs are fun. Cats are just there.

I don't know the numbers, but from what I've heard it's much higher than expected and possibly a major league deal. Could drive up the price of Cespedes and Soler. Could this be a swallowed the cat to catch the dog situation in which it may have pushed Cespedes and/or Solers prices high enough that it could turn off most teams other than those with available money to burn, such as the Cubs? Over flexing our financial muscles so to speak?

He was pretty bad the last two years but had a 3.62 ERA from 2007-09. A decent depth move if he puts it back together. Nothing to get worked up over, but wasn't he a pretty decent mid rotation guy at one point?

That's a pretty big deal that we just signed a guy who automatically jumps into our top 10. May not be Cespedes or Soler, but I'm surprised that this thread hasn't blown up a bit more.

When Goldstein was asked on Twitter where Concepcion ranks in The Cubs system he answered 6.

Kind of like the Packer fans who were ready to crown Aaron Rodgers as the greatest quarterback ever after the last Super Bowl.

We really don't though.

Not too likely with free agency and the fact that the Rays are pretty much a small market. The Braves were never a huge market either. Back then, players didn't switch teams quite as often, but the trend was certainly on the rise.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/02/01/dont-get-in-a-free-agent-fight-with-the-yankees-and-other-bullets/ Long story short: don't waste your time courting the guy, it's all about the money.

Anything regarding a player potentially on the cubs 25 man roster should be worthy of its own thread. The last thread on page 1 hasn't been posted in for two weeks, we'll live. So Jason Jaramillo, Trever Miller, Matt Tolbert, Alfredo Amezaga, Joe Mather, Edger Gonzalez, and Bobby Scales each should have had their own thread? They could all potentially be on the 25 man roster. I agree to the extent that there could be a seperate thread for minor transactions and potential signings for the Cubs seperate from the misc. thread, but each doesn't need it's own thread, which would ultimately end up with the same discussion each time.

It's hard to compare 3 hall of fame pitchers with 3 guys that young, 2 of whose careers have barely begun. It marks far from the first time a team had what appeared to be 3 young aces on their hands that would lead them into the future. Prior, Zambrano, and Wood, for one say hi, as do Mulder, Zito, and Hudson. The beauty of the Braves trio wasnt just that they were so dominant but that they stayed together for so many years which was fast becoming a rarity in baseball even then. Time will tell what ultimately becomes of those 3 Rays pitchers. Even if all 3 reach their full potential, who knows how many, if any are still with the Rays.

I think that's as much as the Red Sox are willing to add salary at this point (due to the luxury tax) and so are probably just throwing it out at all the best options left and hope somebody bites. Who cares, Selig's going to hand them Matt Garza and Starlin Castro anyway. Amiright?

Any somewhat knowledgeable fans were happy wit the DeRosa trade. The "meatballs" were the ones unhappy with it and seem to think that he would have saved the 2009 season after Aramis went down. Who knows, maybe he would have helped keep us afloat while Aramis was gone as he did have a pretty good first half with the Indians before he was sent to the Cardinals, but there's no reason not to like the trade, except for the fact that it was made to free up salary for Milton Bradley. Another in a long line of ridiculous comments from you. That someone might disagree on the necessity of trading Mark DeRosa at the time does not make them a meatball. I personally didn't like the trade due to the lack of depth at 2b and RF at the time. And that we ran Aaron Miles out there for much too long that season made it that much worse. He may or may not have saved the season, and the return was decent enough, but the moves made that season likely hurt the team that year more than it helped. I put "meatballs" in quotes for such a reason. I liked that we did sell high, but like you, didn't quite think it was necessary. I even said that if we had DeRosa, we would have had a better chance of surviving the Ramirez injury, though it's not a sure thing. As for the moves that Season, a lot of it was Bradley himself. They traded away a productive bat in hopes that Bradley, who already had a long history of both physical an mental issues could reproduce his career season, although unlike DeRosa and Miles, Bradley had a very good past track record. Remember, Lou also wanted to get more left handed. If Bradley could have produced the kind of numbers he had the previous 2 seasons, things could have turned out differently. Lets not forget that Alfonso Soriano also fell off a cliff that year.