WilcoFan

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/cubs-negotiating-with-paul-maholm.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It's pretty coincidental that one report (that seems to come from Boras) about how the Cubs are "getting serious" about Fielder is followed almost immediately by a report that indicates the Cubs don't have the money and aren't serious...from a reporter who would have a connection to the Cubs' front office. Seems like a simple case of negotiation through the media. Boras wants to drive the price up by leaking stories about big market clubs, and the Cubs want to keep the price down (either for themselves or someone else) by crying poor.

The Chicago sports media has been bad in recent years, but this offseason they've been embarrassingly bad. They're just slinging [expletive] at the wall. Makes sense. Most of these reporters have spent the last 10+ years building up sources in the MacPhail/Hendry regime. Most of those sources are now gone and/or out of the loop. They haven't had much time to establish relationships with sources in the Epstein/Hoyer group, so they're stuck on the outside like the rest of us.

Seems like a Boras-side leak. "The Cubs are gathering Fielder-related information?" Come on. That's about as unspecific as The Mystery Team.

Rogers seems to have been the most connected to the new regimethus far, at least as far as accuracy of sourced information. granted, no Chicago reporter has been great (my guess is that they're still establishing their connections with insiders), but he's had one or two hits thus far, whereas most of the other locals haven't had any hits.

Given the amount of rumors that get leaked for any number of purposes, I'd have a hard time believing anything's become abundantly clear. Some clarity will come by the end of the offseason, but I can't imagine anyone will get a real handle on things until that point.

Randy Wells is the Adolf Hitler of this board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Who exactly are you arguing against?

Disagree. It's a low-risk, low-reward trade that, in the most likely scenario, has us losing extra games in 2012 because we are running out a terrible third baseman who is going to get $1.5 to $2.5 million more than he is worth. That's fine. Whatever. You can overreact all you want--I'm done with this thread. More importantly, we got it the first four thousand times you wrote it. Why do you keep writing the same thing?

I'm amazed that this is still getting discussed. It's not that anyone has a problem with people objecting to the trade; reasonable people can disagree. The problem is the over-the-top vitriol this trade has created and the exaggeration of its importance, both in terms of its relationship to the Cubs' payroll and to the philosophy of the GM/Front Office. The idea that this trade (a) hampers the Cubs' payroll in any meaningful way or (b) demonstrates a "small market mindset" that will permeate the club throughout the coming years is, frankly, stupid. It is a low-risk, medium to high-reward trade that, worst case scenario, loses this team $1.5 million (or, roughly 1/3 of John Grabow's salary last year). In a market that is clearly bereft of even above average 3B that represent any kind of value, this trade allows for the team to give someone a shot who may or may not pay off in a year that, even had the team made several upgrades, is still likely to be a transitional year. Furthermore, to insinuate that this deal somehow represents "small market mentality" ignores the fact that only ONE player who anyone on this board suggested was a reasonable target has been signed thus far (and at a rate with which many were uncomfortable), and exactly zero major trades have occurred. The process of rebuilding a dead franchise will take a long time, and I, for one, am glad that the people currently in charge have that responsibility.

I'm still waiting for a compelling argument in favor of it. So far, I've got: 1) He used to be sort of close to average. 2) Maybe his terrible season last year didn't mean anything. 3) He's left-handed. 4) Our scouts see something in him they like. 5) Baseball America had a boner for him half a decade ago. If it's early February and you've spent all offseason trying to dig up a credible third baseman and you haven't found anyone, then maybe you scrape up a busted prospect or injury reclamation for the league minimum. You don't settle on a guy who's both as your starting 3b on Dec. 8, knowing he's going to make a couple of million in arbitration. "Your argument is incredibly poor, especially when I create a caricature of it."

The Cubs could make three more "terrible" moves identical to this one and it would roughly equal last year's salary paid to John Grabow.

Because he's 26 years old, has very good pedigree, and cheaply provides at least 1-2 WAR at a position where there is an extreme dearth of available talent. We don't have a glut of guys who can do that with any certainty, and certainly not with the upside that Stewart provides. Put another way, do you think the chance of Stewart improving to be a solid regular and making good on his prospect status(as high as #4 in MLB) is worth the incremental 1 million or so he'll cost over DeWitt? Is there another 3B option you prefer that offers some better combination of performance, upside, and affordability? Response: 1. Question the locations at which the high performances occurred 2. Restate the problems from last year Wash, rinse, repeat. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. It will simply be a rehash of the points that have already been made--on both sides.

That's funny, I can't believe there's a significant portion of this board who are glad our starting 3b for 2012 is coming off a sub-replacement season and we are hoping he bounces back to maybe average. WHATEVER YOU SAY I WILL REPHRASE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! BOOM! ROASTED!

IT. HAS. BEEN. ONE. MONTH. This is ridiculous.

This is just ridiculous. And stupid. Yup. 1. Some people tend to forget that our biggest acquisition happened well before the Winter Meetings. 2. Some people need to realize that Theo Epstein is very good at what he does. Feel free to question him, because it's not like anybody is perfect, but I trust Theo knows what he wants to do and has a plan. I trust him to carry it out better than any GM. If we don't make any big signings, I'm 100 percent on board with backing Epstein on that choice. I will give him 10 years. My confidence in him will never sway during that time. That's right. Ten years. I like the Kool Aid, but let's face it, so far this off season hasn't been much different than if Hendry were still running the team. My guess is that one of the only big differences would have been that Hendry would have protected Flaherty. I hope that I'm wrong, but I would have rather kept DJ and given him a chance. This is the same DJ LeMahieu that doesn't have a position and had an OPS of .694 at AAA last year, right? There's isn't some other DJ LeMahieu? The criticism after one MONTH of Epstein/Hoyer makes me think that Cubs' fans deserved Jim Hendry.

In the minors, he spent a couple years at AAA Colorado Springs, a ridiculously hitter-friendly environment. Then in the majors, he spent his home games at Coors Field with its 110 park factors. The Rockies have been giving him a large percentage of his at-bats against his favorable platoon matchup every year. This isn't trolling or giving two poops about what everyone else thinks. I really don't like Ian Stewart as a player. If everyone decides tomorrow that they agree, then I'll still really dislike him as a player. "This band was a lot cooler before they got popular."

This is just ridiculous. And stupid.

And plays sub-average defense. Based on what exactly? Ian Stewart is History's Greatest Monster. I'm surprised you don't realize that.

Jesus, its been a whole month. The Cubs have made two moves, and only one player who anyone actually wanted has signed a contract thus far. Anyone even remotely freaking out or projecting any level of judgment on the FO right now is dumb.

Is there anything other than speculation in regard to this? I haven't heard anything about the Comcast SportsNet contract going away any time soon. Who said anything about soon? As far as anything other than speculation...the Cubs have broached the subject with season ticket holders as something they eventually want to do at one of those season ticket holder meetings. That's about it. I do know that the current deals in place were a sticking point for Ricketts when buying the team. Nobody said anything about soon. I was asking a question because I didn't know. I'd love for it to be sooner rather than later, because this Comcast deal is stupid and I'm not sure why the Cubs entered into it in the first place.

Is there anything other than speculation in regard to this? I haven't heard anything about the Comcast SportsNet contract going away any time soon.

Not sure if they do--the money for Pujols had a lot to do with the "lifetime PR" benefits of Pujols. Not sure if the ownership would want to immediately turn that over to another player who doesn't provide the same type of long-term PR benefits.

Apparently nobody is interested in Fielder and he'll likely sign a 1/1.5 deal with the A's, While this isn't collusion per se, it certainly seems like a coincidentally coordinated effort to out-Boras Boras. Overall, it is good to see smart executives in a number of cities who don't panic the moment Boras plants a story about a "mystery team".

No, it's reading exactly what he said. He should have played in the good old days because he actually cares. No, it's reading too far into it. No matter how absolutely you claim it isn't.