davearm2

Cano? Teixeira? Both? Z and Soto are both really good at baseball. Z makes a little too much for what he provides, and Soto is one of the most valuable assets in the game. To be fair, Montero is arguably also one of the most valuable assets in the game.

I think there's quite a bit of wishful thinking going on in this thread. Zambrano's contract is still an albatross, even despite a strong end to 2010. He wouldn't get $18m a year as a free agent. Something like John Lackey's ~$15M a year would be about the ceiling IMO. So if teams wouldn't sign him to his current contract, then they sure as heck aren't going to assume it in a trade, PLUS give up good prospects.

He's younger, healthier and not crazy? Can't argue much with the first two, but he's definitely got some of the same personality concerns as Z. Agreed. Those that think swapping Zambrano for Garza would add emotional stability or whatever are probably mistaken.

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4858972/rangers-didnt-cross-7th-parallel-for-cliff-lee On Mike & Mike this morning Greenberg made the case that missing out on Lee might've been the best thing to happen to the Rangers. They saved face with their fanbase while also avoiding a potentially crippling contract.

The Yankees have been operating in this mode for years and years. They've been amongst the oldest teams in MLB for awhile now, with very little homegrown talent making an impact at the MLB level since the days of Jeter Posada and Rivera. And obviously their payroll has grown steadily even when that growth looked unsustainable. The Phillies are now emulating them. There's no reason the Phils can't be successful with this approach, even with ~75% of the Yankees' payroll. The Yankees have Cano, Gardner, Cervelli, Hughes, and most of their bullpen that are all 28 and under. The Phillies have Hamels, 1-2 bullpen guys, and then Brown gets his first action this year. That's an obvious edge to the Yankees group. And as I've said if the Phillies truly do have the Yankees payroll they can emulate the Yankees and they'll be fine. I don't believe you can do a Yankees style model long term without the huge financial disparity that the Yankees have had on the league. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Cano is the only impact player in that Yankees group. The others will have roles, but they probably won't be cornerstone types. Hughes maybe. The others, nah. Five years from now we won't be viewing the Yankees' core as homegrown. They'll continue to build through splashy free agent signings and trades for high-profile guys too expensive to keep (or soon to be). Regardless, the point remains that the Yankees emphatically disprove the notion that a core of 30+ YO guys is inherently bad or dooms a team to imminent collapse. So do the Red Sox for that matter (Varitek, Schilling, Manny, Lowe, Lowell, Ortiz, Wakefield era of 3-4 years ago I mean). It's sustainable, as big contracts come off the books every year.

The Yankees have been operating in this mode for years and years. They've been amongst the oldest teams in MLB for awhile now, with very little homegrown talent making an impact at the MLB level since the days of Jeter Posada and Rivera. And obviously their payroll has grown steadily even when that growth looked unsustainable. The Phillies are now emulating them. There's no reason the Phils can't be successful with this approach, even with ~75% of the Yankees' payroll.

This won't be any problem at all. Carpenter, Jackson, Lake, and Vitters. Beyond those four, I wouldn't get too worried about anybody. Lake is nowhere near ready for a full year in the majors.

There's absolutely no evidence that the Cubs "are going to tank the season", and the notion that this is being contemplated internally is just absurd. What you describe as "one-foot-in-one-foot-out kind of moves" is what is otherwise known as operating within a budget. And frankly this mode of operation is more encouraging than the one that puts another Soriano sized contract on the books.

Heck I'd have no problem putting IP-based bonuses in this year's contract. Give him a $5M base and an extra $1M for each additional 10 IP above, say, 160 or 170. If the guy's logging those sorts of innings in 2011 then there's a extremely high likelihood he's earning every penny and more.

Wow that reads like it came straight out of Introductory Press Conferences for Dummies. Except for that quick blurb on the new ownership, a guy could apply those quotes to any team/city.

Wow between Uribe, Jeter, Werth, and now Crawford, MLB is sure doing its part to signal the recession is over.

I strongly doubt the Cubs have another 1 yr 10 million dollar card to play this winter.

I wonder what the market for Fukudome is like this winter, and whether the Cubs would have to include $$$ to move him. I like the guy as a player, but getting out from under that entire $13M and living with Colvin + Guyer and/or Davis in RF seems pretty palatable if the savings are plowed into Webb and/or Garza.

Perhaps I'm being greedy, but what about a rotation that includes Z, Demp, Webb, Garza, and Wells? Cashner next in line if there's injury or ineffectiveness. Doesn't seem that hard to imagine, if the Cubs are talking both with Webb's folks and the Rays. Plus it seems like we'd be able to recoup the lost prospects sent for Garza by dealing Gorzellany and Silva. Of course finding payroll for Pena + Webb + Garza might be an issue.

Yes Konerko seems priced WAAAY out of the Cubs' plans.

Not really. 30 potential bidders > 1 bidder. It's a Boras founding principle. He got Tom Hicks to bid against himself for A-Rod. ... when he became a free agent after not extending with Seattle.

Huh? Like 5 minutes ago you said "who said to only look for prospects"? Now the answer to that question is you. What the [expletive] are you babbling about? Me: I don't want to trade all these guys for a bunch of prospects. You: Who said anything about just prospects? Me: The guy who talked about taking your lumps now. You: Well we can't get impact players. Me: Then what's the point? You: To get prospects. Hope this helps.

Basically trading Byrd may not net you a future AGone or Greinke, but possibly a future Castro or Soto. This all depends on your scouting and how good your GM is at getting the prospects he wants from a trade. I'd be totally fine with something like that, and at the risk of complete and utter scorn I'd venture to say that Hendry is a good guy to have picking the prospects coming back. What I don't want to see the Cubs do is make a concerted, aggressive effort to trade as many guys as possible for prospects in some sweeping rebuilding plan. Not that I think they would in any event.

Huh? Like 5 minutes ago you said "who said to only look for prospects"? Now the answer to that question is you. And once again I won't be sad to see any of these guys go, if they do, provided the return is worthwhile. What I think would be a mistake would be to trade several of them for prospect packages. To me that would ensure more losing in 2011, and very likely no improvement beyond that. If you've got a long list of firesales that have worked out, then by all means set me straight.

That's how I interpreted the comment, "take your lumps now instead of prolonging them for the next 3 years." Sounded like prospects to me :shrug: The players we're talking about trading aren't going to net you impact players that will turn this team around in the near future. If the return is not going to turn the team around, then what's the point? Being mediocre with guys other than Byrd, Marmol, Soto etc. is preferable why?

I didn't say not signing Berkman was a PR blunder. But deferring money on a one year contract to a free agent is comical. This organization is struggling to do anything right since the end of the season whether it is player acquisition or the business side of the organization. Isn't it possible that the Cubs thought they were offering the most $$$, albeit with a chunk of it deferred? Would it make you feel better if they offered $5M with none deferred versus $8M with $3M deferred? Knowing what we do now about the Cards' offer, the outcome would've been the same either way, but nonetheless it's a valid question.

I'm surprised more Cashner backers aren't seeing this angle.

Not really. 30 potential bidders > 1 bidder. It's a Boras founding principle.

That's how I interpreted the comment, "take your lumps now instead of prolonging them for the next 3 years." Sounded like prospects to me :shrug:

So long as Fielder is still represented by Scott Boras, I don't see much of a chance that he signs an extension without testing free agency.