WilcoFan

It'd be ok but it's hard to be excited about a redeemable rotation when our offense is likely to be not great. I am intrigued about an idea of building a decent pitching staff with guys who can defend, thus making the pitching appear better. Don't know if that' the route we're considering though. The Dejesus signing is why I even consider it. The bolded might make Zack Cozart an interesting name in the Reds system.

A fair trade is usually one that pisses off both fanbases.

Billy Hamilton would be a steal here.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/7496/source-cubs-reds-close-on-marshall-deal?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter That's [expletive] awful. Marshall has more value than that, unless at least one of the prospects is in the Reds top 5-7 The market sets the value.

If the choice was Darvish versus Fielder (and who knows if it was), then the safe decision is Fielder, for a number of reasons. Missing on Darvish is a much safer play, considering the relative strength of the 2013 free agent class of pitchers versus hitters. It would be much easier to construct a stopgap staff that could be moderately successful in 2012, while building to a major FA pitching splurge in the upcoming offseason, than it would be to attempt the same on the offensive side of the ball. As of right now (and of course this can, and will, change), there are starting pitchers at every level next year, whether it be a #1/2 (Cain, Danks, Greinke, Hamels), #2/3 (Marcum, Lewis, A. Sanchez), and even a fair share of high upside, probably low cost options (Liriano, Matsuzaka). Compare that to the relatively short list of offensive talent at any position: Hamilton (age concerns), Kendrick (injury concerns), Wright (club option), Montero All in all, if the goal is to improve the team in the near future (1-2 years) it seems the miss on Darvish is a much lower risk maneuver than would be an inability to significantly improve the offense this offseason.

If they aren't spending now because they can't, then this organization's financial advantage over the opposition is a mirage, and that would suck mega balls. I would much, much, much rather they actually just chose to be too smart for their own good and not spend what was available to them. I think, to a certain extent, the Cubs' financial advantage is a bit overblown, mostly because people see the manner in which the Cubs draw game after game and assume that it equals a massive financial advantage. Consider the following: 1. The Cubs have outdated facilities, both in their Spring Training home (granted, this is a small percentage of potential profit), and in their regular season home--not so much in the average tickets, which they sell, but in the potential for luxury boxes, which most sports finance people argue is where the bulk of profit is made. One could argue that the rooftops could act as additional luxury boxes, however the Cubs only take in a percentage of the profits on those. 2. Much in the same way the Cubs are not sole owners of their luxury boxes (rooftops), they are also not sole beneficiaries of their television profits on either the cable or standard television sides. They are splitting the profits from ComcastSportsNet with three other organizations, and their WGN deal is still hampered by the contract signed when the Cubs were just a subsidiary of the network. 3. Some of the Cubs' greatest advantages (a large geographically diverse fanbase) are mitigated by the fact that, even if these fans buy Cubs' merchandise, merchandise revenue sharing takes a percentage of the profit. This is not to cry for the poor Cubs, but it simply points out that the Cubs, as currently constructed (in the business sense), are probably only maximizing about 50% of their potential assets, while all of their opponents in the division are maximizing close to 90% (that's an educated guess). The Cubs are the "sleeping giant" in MLB, but I don't think an ownership change was the only step necessary to see it through. It was a first step, but not an "only step."

Irony. Nah. I'm really cool when I get mad. It's a simmering, sensual fury. Those expletives slip from my lips with the hiss of a steam grate on a sultry summer night down a dangerous alley in the big city. That second sentence creeps me the [expletive] out.

"Going cheap" implies that they are not spending the money they have; it is entirely possible that they're not spending money because they don't have much to spend.

Irony.

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive. Two months of a single offseason is only a slightly larger sample size than an individual offseason--especially considering that there are probably, at most, four to five players that they have considered spending money on. Right now, the difference between a single player and the "whole picture" is 3-4 players maximum.

It is entirely possible that the Ricketts haven't found enough ways to monetize the team at this point, and they are in fact running a deficit. They then decided that the best way to spend money most efficiently was to allocate the money to the place where it could turn the most immediate profit-in facilities (hence the Mesa facility, as well as the purchase of the McDonald's location and a a push to improve Wrigley) and the front office (where a mind like Epstein can be had for roughly the same cost as a middle reliever). If/when those investments pay off (which may not be for several years), the Cubs become the big market team everyone thinks they are. Until then, It is possible they may be operating in the red.

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem? In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

So much anger...yeesh.

There is a lot more complexity to the posting system than this. Game theory is important, especially when the end result is immediately writing a check for dozens of millions of dollars. I see that point, but you would hope a big market team like the Cubs, with a lot of money coming off the books, would have the flexibility to make it happen. Well, given that it will likely be a $30-40 million outlay for Darvish this year (depending on how much upfront money the posting fee requires be paid immediately), the money may have not been available.

still BAN For that one, I deserve it. The other one was great. ...in 2005

Not on twitter he's not

Okay, let's role play. I'll be Yu Darvish's money and you be the Cubs. You offer that. I say "No, I want guaranteed money." Now what? You have 40 million in guaranteed money. Go back to Japan. Keep in mind Matsuzaka only got what, 50mil? You could get 30 more than that. You do realize I make about $12 million a year in Japan and you are offering me less than that. I'll repost next year and see if the team that wins is actually taking this seriously. *click* Well, that was productive. Darvish cant be reposted. If he doesn't sign now, he's in Japan for the next three years.

I'm sure Theo and Hoyer will be devastated.

We should find out in about two hours that we are acting like the K.C. Royals and not a major market team. That said, I do fear that Yu's arm will fall off within three years. So while the Cubs lack of going for some of the top shelf free agents is bothersome, I can understand the low ball offer in this case because of the potential arm issues. So which is it?

But why would there be? At this point, probably a handful of Cubs employees, A couple of people at MLB, and maybe not even the Japanese team yet know what the Cubs bid was. Perhaps nobody is talking the Cubs, because the Cubs aren't talking to them. Personally I don't think the Cubs won, but that isn't because no random reporters are talking about them. Well, we got Ian Stewart, and there were serious rumors. We got David DeJesus, and there were serious rumors. The lack of serious rumors doesn't preclude it, but it means "Not the Cubs" is the odds-on bet. Actually, the odds-on bet is "Not The" followed by every team who has bid. Given equal odds, it is always best to take the field.

So would sending Garza out and getting a return of Rizzo and either Profar or Perez be equivalent? What would be required to make it equivalent?

I've read this now about both San Diego and Texas (quantity over quality). Is there a "centerpiece" player anywhere in baseball that might match up well with Garza, or are the Cubs going to be forced (if they decide to trade Garza this offseason) to go quantity over singular quality? I mean, Martin Perez and Jurickson Profar were both BA top 12 midseason prospects. I can't imagine anyone who has been rumored to be engaged with the Cubs would have a more highly regarded prospect to deal.

What a snoozefest I would hope that if Hoyer/Theo doesn't hear the word "Profar" in discussions, then he thinks long and hard about the idea of Quantity over Quality.

I'd be interested to find out from people how they'd feel about the following scenario. It's a hypothetical, so please don't argue with the likelihood of the premises: The Cubs trade Garza, miss out on Darvish, and don't pursue Fielder. They sign a few middling veterans to fill holes in the roster. However, the after trades they make (Garza and whomever else you want to consider), the Cubs end up with 5-6 players in the Baseball America minor league prospect top 40 (assuming Jackson and Sczcr are already in), almost all of whom are ML-ready in 2012. Would this be a successful offseason?

Thought of another fantasy trade. It is also assuming that the Cubs choose not to pursue Fielder, of course. Its probably garbage, but why not: CUBS TRADE: Garza, Soto CUBS RECEIVE: Martin Perez, Anthony Rizzo, Chase Headley RANGERS TRADE: Martin Perez, Mike Olt RANGERS RECEIVE: Matt Garza PADRES TRADE: Anthony Rizzo, Chase Headley PADRES RECEIVE: Mike Olt, Geovany Soto So for which team is this deal worst?