davearm2

Nobody should have been predicting 100 losses, that's silly. Now the people in the "Add Pujols/Fielder and Lee/Darvish and this team is a contender in the crappy NLC" camp? I'd say it's pretty safe now to tweak them. Fortunately, people more meatbally than that are running the Cubs now. Ah, another fine davearm2 WHOOOOOSH-moment. Please show me a single person who wanted to sign any of them because they thought THIS year was the priority. I don't care enough to go back months and find a bunch of quotes. But there were quite a few people that thought the Cubs could be contenders this year, and they voiced that opinion repeatedly during the height of the hot stove season. If you can't recall that, or choose not to, then that's on you.

Nobody should have been predicting 100 losses, that's silly. Now the people in the "Add Pujols/Fielder and Lee/Darvish and this team is a contender in the crappy NLC" camp? I'd say it's pretty safe now to tweak them. Fortunately, people more meatbally than that are running the Cubs now.

Good point. In the last four pages of the Castro thread, walks were mentioned once. Lots of discussion going on. Tons of concern being expressed. Oh wait. I bet that's the wrong place to look too.

Don't forget the Starlin Exception: if everyone likes you and you don't walk much, then BA matters and OBP is ignored. Great point; people never talk/complain/worry about Castro and walks here. NAILED IT. I refer you to the Olney thread in Transactions. No concern about walks in evidence there, as folks equate Castro's trade value to that of a young Alex Rodriguez.

Don't forget the Starlin Exception: if everyone likes you and you don't walk much, then BA matters and OBP is ignored.

If only Theo had signed frontline starter and a real 1B the Cubs would be contending and this whole thread could have been avoided

Some pretty basic comprehension skills would have prevented it from going 5 posts, let alone 10 pages.

Age related decline is a much more important consideration for guys getting $200M contracts than it is for guys that can be non-tendered pretty much whenever. Age-related decline is a much more important consideration for guys who were NEVER EVER EVER GOOD until their 29th birthday. That's not age related decline. Are you serious right now? If you believe any of the crap you spew about decline, you of all people should realize that LaHair is a good bet to decline almost immediately after his likely one good season in the bigs. Is there more obvious a "short term player?" I really can't think of one, but that won't stop you from arguing about it. What you're describing is not age-related decline. The last thing the Cubs need to worry about is Bryan LaHair getting old on them.

Age related decline is a much more important consideration for guys getting $200M contracts than it is for guys that can be non-tendered pretty much whenever. Age-related decline is a much more important consideration for guys who were NEVER EVER EVER GOOD until their 29th birthday. That's not age related decline.

Age related decline is a much more important consideration for guys getting $200M contracts than it is for guys that can be non-tendered pretty much whenever.

Size, with Mason being 3-5 inches taller? Age when drafted out of HS? Both irrelevant? Ben Revere at age 20 was (similarly) putting up huge BA's in single-A, and even hitting XBHs more frequently than Williams; speedy OF is actually a relative area of depth in our system, too - so move over, Matt Szczur, somebody even slappier's in town! getting a 150 lb. project OF as the main prize for Garza might just make me physically ill Slappy 150 lb. project sounds a bit like Starlin Castro circa 2009. Just sayin.

Why is LaHair a shorter-term player? If he turns into a pumpkin at some point in 2012, so be it. You can't get much for him in trade now anyway. If he doesn't, the Cubs have many years of club control. Probably the same as Rizzo, in fact, although I haven't double-checked. (And no need to remind me of each guy's age. It's irrelevant to the issue of years under team control.)

I can't imagine the Yanks would hesitate for a moment to shell out ace money for as many ace guys as they could acquire reasonably. I bet they'd be thrilled to have last year's Phillies rotation, for example.

Does he have to fall of a cliff for this to be a terrible contract? He doesn't have to pull a soriano. If he's merely above average for his position for 6-8 years of the contract, was it a bad deal? It's only a bad deal if it cripples your team for many years. That's what I've heard, anyway.

You make yourself sound like a total idiot when you say this garbage. Just because I don't lay out every conceivable option doesn't lead to your goofball conclusion that I'm only considering the ones I've mentioned. If you're so stupid that you need everything spelled out for you, then we're not going to get along very well because I'm not going to stoop to that level.