davearm2

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future. If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion. Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course. I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future. I've said right from the beginning that building for the future is more important to me. I've hardly kept that a secret. Not sure why everyone else is so afraid to pick one side or the other. A definite yes on Marshall, Marmol, and Byrd, presuming solid value is offered. Garza is more tricky since he could be a cornerstone for many years.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future. If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

hahaha, I'M trying to paint an either-or hypothetical? To reiterate, the idea that we can get appropriate/best value for guys, but that value can only be in players that can contribute years down the road, is stupid. I mean, seriously dumb. You can't imagine a scenario where the best offer the Cubs receive for a particular player is for prospects that are a year away? Why not?

I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future. I'm not assuming there's a right and wrong answer, although I know which I would choose. Maybe I shouldn't have even bothered with an example, knowing people would nit-pick it to death. Obviously, both are important. But if presented with an opportunity that hurts in the short term, but helps in the long term, do you take it or leave it? This requires setting aside the obvious point that a deal that helps in both the short and long term is best of all. So "I'd trade Marmol for prospects and then flip them for Felix Hernandez" doesn't really further the discussion at all.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right? You're also ignoring, evidently intentionally, that the Cubs could, and probably would, counteroffer by asking for a ML ready prospect. I know would make that counteroffer. It's fine to want to get prospects, but when you have the resources the Cubs have, and have already made statements supporting the idea that you won't ignore the present to build for the future, why would you not demand to receive ML ready players? That's the flaw in your question. You are ignoring the present in thinking about the future. Theo and Jed have both said they won't do that. I'm not ignoring that option. I'm presuming that the overall talent in the package is inversely related to ML-readiness. If you could get more talent, that's farther away, or less talent, that's ready now, which of those do you take? Again, if you choose the former, then we're right back at the original two options.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right? My position is that the idea that the Cubs find themselves in a spot where they are only able to get prospects who are at least 1 year away from breaking into MLB for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is a hilarious one. If they got ML-ready guys instead, then they'd presumably be less highly regarded and/or have lower ceilings. That stands to reason, does it not? Would you accept that return instead? Neither would I. So we're back to the two options I presented originally. They're not presented as the *only* options available. Just the two most appealing ones. So which one do you prefer? No, not necessarily, especially when we're talking about packages of players, where adjustments in quantity can be made as well as quality. Furthermore, this paints the picture that there is one suitor willing to give up appropriate value for those players, that no third parties could be involved to get that value in players that offer enough certainty for a big market team like the Cubs, the whole concept is just an exercise in absurdity. Oh, Toronto is the only team that doesn't think Marmol's elbow is about to explode, but they can't give up young MLB talent? Well, let's just call up Andrew Friedman and parlay that package into James Shields and an extension. The Royals are the only team willing to shell out for Soto's last 2 arb years? Well turn that into Gio Gonzalez, or Felix Hernandez, or whoever is available that fits a "win now and later" paradigm. Most simply put, the idea that we can get appropriate value for guys, but that value can only be in players that can contribute years down the road, is stupid. It's a false choice presented to play "gotcha" when no such decision is necessary. I'm not assuming any of that stuff. You're trying to paint this as an either-or hypothetical, but in reality (and perhaps I didn't spell it out painstakingly enough), what I'm really asking is if you shop a guy around, get a bunch of teams interested, sort through all the various options, and decide the most attractive offer is for guys that may or may not help you in 2012, and definitely will contribute less than the guy you're giving up, but the younger guys have better long-term value, would you do that trade? Or would you choose one of the lesser packages that provide better immediate impact? To use an extreme, completely unrealistic example to illustrate the question, say one team offers Bryce Harper (better upside, but no immediate contribution) and another offers Ian Stewart (will play right away but who knows what you'll get). Or would you decline all the offers and keep the player? It's really a very basic question I'm asking, yet you want to complicate it and make it all kinds of things it's not. And the basic question is this: would you be willing to make a trade that hurts in the short term but helps in the long term? If you're response is, such a choice is a false dichotomy, I reject that conclusion. It's a very realistic set of circumstances the Cubs could find themselves in this offseason. Heck I'd call it not just realistic, but likely.

Well, Pujols is. Fielder, as good as he is, isn't really all that rare a player. Right. Fielder is being way overhyped. Guys as good as him are available most years. Pujols is definitely a rare case. Rare in terms of the cost too (I think it's safe to assume).

I've already said that I'd be happy giving out the Teixeira and Adrian Gonzalez contracts.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right? My position is that the idea that the Cubs find themselves in a spot where they are only able to get prospects who are at least 1 year away from breaking into MLB for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is a hilarious one. If they got ML-ready guys instead, then they'd presumably be less highly regarded and/or have lower ceilings. That stands to reason, does it not? Would you accept that return instead? Neither would I. So we're back to the two options I presented originally. They're not presented as the *only* options available. Just the two most appealing ones. So which one do you prefer?

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

Fielder, I don't think is the sort of elite talent he's made out to be. Just look at his WAR numbers. Pujols absolutely is elite. Probably the definition of elite, actually. The issue is, the risk ($$$ and years) is just as extreme as the reward (talent).

What a load of bullcrap. Some team could call the Cubs today and make the sort of offer I just described. If you're Theo/Hoyer, do you accept or decline?

How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? Just because he wisely doesn't want the Cubs to hold off spending until they start developing better players internally like davearm2 wants them to do doesn't mean he only wants the quick fix. Everyone with a functioning brain wants them to improve the farm system AND utilize their tremendous financial resources, so I have no idea why you're acting like that's only "your side of the argument." Because I am more focused on the long term moves that make us stronger in 2014 and beyond as opposed to more competitive in 2012, and still stronger in 2013-2014. But maybe not as strong in 2012, with a bit more long term focus in mind. This makes no sense; they don't have to pick one or the other. Trying to compete in 2012 doesn't negate being able to spend, trade or develop players for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and so on and so on and so on. Would you be open to trading Marmol for an excellent package of prospects that are expected to be ML-ready in 2013? How about Marshall? Or Soto (assuming it is fronted by a catching prospect)? Trying to compete in 2012 and building for the long term can indeed be mutually exclusive options. I answer yes to all of those. How about you?

We are nowhere near 3 years away from fielding a strong team. Do you realize how much money is freed up this offseason and next? We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays. My opinion on this often gets misunderstood by people here. So let me elaborate. Signing some big names like Fielder who have flaws (defense, weight), makes you better and = a competitive team. Going the next few years adding just the right pieces, maybe having 2-3 more young guys make it to the big leagues who are ready to contribute in a big way = a "strong team". A strong team is more my "ideal team". One which has guys like Garza, Castro, Jackson, and a handful of other guys in their mid-late 20's who have more upside than they do downside. And it's gonna take a couple years to build that ideal team. Well said. You can construct a realistic scenario where the Cubs make a big jump up the standings right away, with one or two key signings, plenty of good fortune, and a healthy dose of regression from teams like the Cards and Brewers. But they aren't going to be a legitimately strong team for a few years. If things fall into place this year, fantastic. But the overriding goal has to be to build that perennial powerhouse, and there are no shortcuts out there. That's why I'm not opposed to taking a step back to take two steps forward down the road -- that means entertaining trades for guys like Soto Marmol Marshall and possibly even Garza. (How pathetically short that list is kinda reinforces the point.)

That's for sure. The Cubs are a crapload of young talent short of being the Rays. I'd trade our money for their roster in a nanosecond. Hopefully in a few years we will have both the money and the young talent.

A question is not a conclusion. OK then, the answer is no. As should have been plainly obvious.

The suggestion that putting in "110%" effort and "going all out" all the time would be a net negative is just, well I guess it perfectly exemplifies what I'm so shocked by. Do you want the batters to swing from their heels, as hard as they possibly can, every time out? Do you want the pitchers to overthrow their fastballs? How you reached these ridiculous conclusions, I'll never know.

Prove it. Basic human nature proves it.

The suggestion that putting in "110%" effort and "going all out" all the time would be a net negative is just, well I guess it perfectly exemplifies what I'm so shocked by.

They're not in little league. They are making a ton of money, and stand to lose or gain a lot of money based on their level of play. If you think Darwin Barney turning his back to the playing field during play is going to lead to a bunch of guys doing the same you're out of your damn mind. If you think Mark Grace going out and getting tanked every night led to the Cubs being mediocre to bad his entire time here, I don't know what to tell you. Probably not. A strong clubhouse with accountability and high expectations leads to more wins. A lax clubhouse where guys are free to slack off and blow off the little things leads to more losses. I can't tell you exactly how many wins and losses, so don't bother asking. If you think if it can't be counted then it must not matter, then I don't know what to tell you.

I gotta say, it shocks me that there are so many folks on this board that think the notion Sveum expresses here is a bunch of nonsense. I'm sure he regards it as important. I don't think that's in question, actually. He's answering questions put to him about changing the culture, etc and giving the expected answers. And I'm confident he actually believes those answers, too. What matters, though, is that he also has a focus on things that actually matter. He is going to get guys to take a more patient approach. He will stress preparation that includes things like defensive positioning based on thorough analysis. That's not getting talked about as much because the press corps isn't asking those questions. But he can answer culture questions all day and tell the press what they want to hear as long as the other things are also stressed to the team. Obviously Sveum (and Theo) regard the culture issues as important. What I find amazing is that posters here think they don't matter. Basic human nature tells us they do. If the best, highest paid players on the team work their tails off and bring professionalism and intensity to the ballpark every day, that will trickle down to everyone else, and that team is likely to overachieve relative to their true talent level. Conversely, if the top guys routinely cut corners and get away with not working as hard as they can, everyone else will notice, and it will become acceptable. Once it's acceptable, it'll soon be the norm. That team is going to underachieve. We're talking about those subtle edges and fringe effects that add up over a 162 game schedule. Surely "culture" is just as important as something like defensive positioning. Probably way more important.

I gotta say, it shocks me that there are so many folks on this board that think the notion Sveum expresses here is a bunch of nonsense.

If you could get Montero and one of their young arms, and then flip Soto for more young talent, I'd say that'd be about what it would take for me to let go of Garza.

They are awesome because they are win or go home games, which are rare since most series don't go 5 or 7. What's the point of a 3 game series? Everybody acknowledges that 5 games series are too short, a 3 game series is going to be quite random. It's not anymore fair, but it will be an incredible waste of time and very difficult to do with travel and other obstacles. I prefer a no game series. Let's determine the winner based on some sort of tiebreaker. Most wins is preferred, but I'm open to fewest losses as well. 30 team league, 174 game season. Everybody plays a 3-game series home and away vs. everyone else. Best record is the champion. Hard to decide what I hate most about this idea.

Obviously what Wilson's production over the next 5-6 years will be is more relevant than what it has been for the last 2. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to wager that most folks don't anticipate he'll be amongst baseball's ten best players going forward.