davearm2

I'm not advocating that all of the factors must line up "just right". Your (incorrect) interpretation of my standards is what is narrowly defined. For the record, I'm in favor of going after Cespedes, mainly since his performance window ought to remain open for many years.

You realize that's nearly impossible to predict and align, right? It's impossible to predict when you're one or two elite players away from being the sort of consistent 95-win team I described? Yes, that's the part that's very, very difficult to align. It's not a matter of, "welp, we've got our young core established...now bring on the plethora of under 30 elite free agents!" If you keep waiting for "synchronicity" you're not going to to have it most of the time. Disagree. There are several impact guys switching teams every offseason, either via trade or via free agency. There's not really a shortage of supply. The notion that you have to get a certain player because the opportunity won't come along again is just wrong, IMO.

Signing Edwin Jackson or Roy Oswalt to a short-term (1 or 2 year) contract would be pointless given the Cubs' situation. It adds a few wins to a sub-.500 team. Who cares. The best you can hope for is to trade them later on. That may be one way to acquire prospects, but it surely must be the least efficient. Yeah, you completely missed the point. Had the Cubs front office wanted to, they would have been able to field an over - .500 ballclub while staying within the budget and without saddling the payroll with poor long term contracts. Is it the optimal way to acquire prospects? Absolutely not. But there would have been some semblance of competing during the process. And we'd still be able to make moves to leave us better off in the long run. I didn't miss the point. I just fundamentally disagree with the premise that I bolded above. I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys.

Guys like Kuroda and Oswalt can be dealt. It's inevitable a team will be "saddled" with overpaid big ticket FA; it's unavoidable if you want to actually utilize them at any point. You have an unrealistic idea of big name FA being available lining up just right when a team has enough internal talent developing so as to avoid payroll bloat. That's not going to happen. That's nonsense. There are big name free agents available every offseason. And there are more impact guys available through trade.

You realize that's nearly impossible to predict and align, right? It's impossible to predict when you're one or two elite players away from being the sort of consistent 95-win team I described?

I wouldn't go that far. There were ways to make this team a fringe contender in 2012 without handing out bad contracts. Go on. Which free agent contracts did you wish the Cubs had handed out this offseason? Of the biggies, CJ Wilson's deal is the easiest to defend, but that price almost certainly wasn't available to the Cubs. Reyes? Fielder? Pujols? How did you get from what I said to "Rob wants to sign 'biggies'?" I was talking about spreading the money around on marginal upgrades and making a handful of smart, low-cost trades. Targeting Edwin Jackson and one of Kuroda / Oswalt would likely be better in the short term than Wood/Volstad/Wells. Trading for Alberto Callaspo would be better than Ian Stewart, and only cost marginally more. This wasn't a 71 win team last season. There was enough room in the payroll to add players to take us to a mid 80's win team. That doesn't always put you in the playoffs, but it gives you a shot. I get why the front office decided to target a future window instead of opting to make slower yearly gains. And I don't necessarily disagree. But let's not pretend it was the only option. Right. I made no secret about my desire to see the Cubs take advantage of the big name FA market this offseason, but I certainly didn't want to see them only spending money on big names. Hell, I didn't even see it as a necessity to spend on any of the big names (Pujols, Fielder and Darvish). What I was hoping for, however, was at least a middle ground like Rob is talking about, where they both look to take a shot at competing in a weakened division in 2012 AND build for the future. It's certainly not an unrealistic expectation given the resources available to the Cubs. Again, middle ground was perfectly realistic, but the middle ground is a place dave can't process. I can process it just fine, and what's more, I can realize it's a worse option than the one they have chosen. Theo and co.'s primary perspective should be building toward a perennial 95-win team. The short term options like Kuroda and Oswalt do nothing to further that goal. In a few years being saddled with an overpaid, past-prime Fielder or Pujols actually hinders that goal. Now if they can compete in the short term while also building toward that long-term goal, then great. I just don't see them being in that position right now, personally.

Signing Edwin Jackson or Roy Oswalt to a short-term (1 or 2 year) contract would be pointless given the Cubs' situation. It adds a few wins to a sub-.500 team. Who cares. The best you can hope for is to trade them later on. That may be one way to acquire prospects, but it surely must be the least efficient. The Cubs are doing just what they should do... synchronize their spending on big-ticket free agents with the maturation of their young core. That necessarily means passing on this offseason's Fielders and Pujolses and CJ Wilsons, since the young core isn't there yet. If that makes the meatheads whine and cry about how they're not throwing around money like a big-market team should, then so be it.

I wouldn't go that far. There were ways to make this team a fringe contender in 2012 without handing out bad contracts. Go on. Which free agent contracts did you wish the Cubs had handed out this offseason? Of the biggies, CJ Wilson's deal is the easiest to defend, but that price almost certainly wasn't available to the Cubs. Reyes? Fielder? Pujols?

The Cubs obviously need to follow all of these talent acquisition routes. But when they take the plunge on a big free agent, it needs to be on a guy (or guys) that won't be well into a decline phase (and be a drag on the payroll) by the time the young guys are ready to make a real impact. Cespedes fits the profile (provided you're sold on his talent) because he's only 26. Nobody is arguing against the notion that a rebuilding year will be painful. The argument is about whether the rebuilding year was necessary in the first place.

I'm making up your stance that the Cubs should go hard after Dunn, Fielder, Pujols, Wilson etc etc? That's rich. Way to stand behind your (millions of endlessly repeated) words. :lol:

Oh please. You've been advocating for months (wait, years) that the Cubs overspend for past-prime players on the dubious "logic" that hey, why not? Awful contracts won't cripple the team. Nobody likes the rebuilding process. But it's necessary. It's the necessity that you don't grasp. Your plan is to keep throwing money at the problem.

Actually it's time to celebrate that the folks in charge are smart enough not to build the team the way you would.

Then he fits perfectly with the "failed top prospect reclamation project" theme.

Why not find out for yourself.

"future bet" is kinda redundant, no? ;)

Wait, he's probably the best hitter in his class at school but you are worried about his ability to make the junior high team? He stated pretty clearly the reasons why.

Seriously. If Bud Selig is going to roll up his sleeves and start grading the Cubs' minor leaguers, and placing values on them, then we should all be worried.

I think the Astros nickname fits fine, with NASA being in Houston.

I hope the right-side portion of the circular base is in play. That would be fun.

Cubs @ ~38:1 doesn't seem that outrageous. Or outrageous at all.

You could always move that DH to another position, so in a game where you are behind you may slot him into LF or 1B and try to move out your weakest bat. In games you are ahead, you let your DH go to the bench. Exactly. If you boil it down, the gist is, when you bring in a reliever, you have to slot him into the batting order someplace. So maybe the RP just goes straight into the DH's slot in the order, the guy who was the DH is out of the game, and the other 8 positional players stay where they are. Or instead you could have something akin to a double switch, where you pull one of the 8 positional guys out, put the RP in his slot, put the guy who was the DH on the field someplace, and reshuffle defensively as necessary. I really like this compromise. The pro-DH crowd will like that pitchers are still (almost) never going to bat, the anti-DH crowd will like that there's still plenty of endgame strategy to consider, and the MLBPA will like that there's still a place for the Thome's and Ortiz's.

Meh, we survived the Fukudome jokes.

Which do you think the union would rather have, 30 more MLB jobs at the league minimum or 15 existing jobs making substantially more money? It's not really the point. The point is, MLB has carrots it can dangle out there, if it truly wants the DH gone.

... for the reasons I stated. Getting rid of the DH achieves the same objectives.

??? Earlier you said you just wanted consistency, and for both leagues to be on a level playing field (paraphrasing).