Brett

You made a legitimate point (even if I had, I think, a good explanation for what I did), and I appreciated the opportunity to clarify. I really do try to be SUPER transparent about this stuff. To me, that's the right thing to do, and, to be completely honest, it's also good business. EDIT (I just can't help myself ... I edit a lot): I also meant to say nice reference. Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/29/away-we-go-chicago-cubs-reportedly-set-to-hire-joe-maddon/ lol, Brett edited it to: I guess his "sources" changed their tune once his other "sources" on Twitter say it wasn't quite done yet. For what it's worth, that edit was to clarify that I was using "done deal" colloquially, not as synonymous with "official" (the edit happened within minutes - I was typing the original post very quickly and trying to think very quickly). I didn't want folks to think this was being "announced" by the Cubs on the day of Game 7. The rest of the post probably made that clear, but I wanted to make absolutely certain since sometimes isolated sections of posts are snipped out for discussion. EDIT: What I mean is, I don't think that was a substantive edit. That's what the updates are. I added a note to the intro on the post to indicate there have been edits.

Thanks for the kind words, and for sharing/discussing. The thing about being considered a "mouthpiece" for the front office or for ownership is one of those double-edged swords, especially as it relates to a piece like this. I spent so long researching it, talking to folks - both inside and outside the Cubs' organization - and writing it up, that it was impossible not to come out of it without a really strong position on the front office and on ownership. And the short version was that I was really impressed by what they've done in spite of some very real limitations. So the write-up, then, is going to have a positive gloss. I really don't know if that makes me a mouthpiece. If I'm supportive of something because I actually believe in it, that's something different, right? That is to say, I'm not speaking out in favor of the FO/ownership because I'm trying to get anything out of it (and I certainly don't). I just happen to think they're swell. And that's all probably been reflective of how I've written about the team over the past few years. I just think what I think, and it happens to be mostly good stuff. Sorry for the tangent, but Ryan's comment gave me an opportunity to reflect in a way that I don't always get in the comments at BN.

Arriving tonight. Speaking purely as a fan, I'm not expecting some earth-shattering announcement at the Convention. I still enjoy the panel discussions, though - at least when folks ask meaningful questions. Nice. Looking forward to the blogging/Tweeting from the convention. Seriously... thanks for what you do. Your site has become one of that rotation of 5 or 6 that I re-open like 20x a day. Agreed. Best Cubs blog on the internet by far. Well thanks, gents. NSBB will also hold a special place in my heart ...

Arriving tonight. Speaking purely as a fan, I'm not expecting some earth-shattering announcement at the Convention. I still enjoy the panel discussions, though - at least when folks ask meaningful questions.

I can't speak for others, but usually when I know something I can't get into specifics on, I don't say anything at all. In this case, I think within the context of a 1200 word article, what I wrote in that line was both appropriate and useful. Edit: Sorry, I didn't see that there was an entire parallel conversation going on over the past few days. My bust.

Well didn't you just make me look stupid. Thanks for that, though. It's definitely encouraging. Haha. Nah. I lurk from time to time, and wanted to try and answer you as best I could.

I hope folks don't go too nuts on the whispers (yes, plural). I went only as far as I could - I don't want to pretend to know more than I do, or have heard more than I have. I have heard some encouraging things, but nothing solid enough to say, "This is a thing that is happening." Mostly I just wanted to call attention to the issue, and the hope that this is how the Cubs are focusing their attentions (which I believe they are). Wish I could offer more.

Intentionally breaching the contract - if blocking the views does that - is the potentially unsavory part. I'm making no judgment either way - it's a frequent business practice. I just wanted to make sure and note that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

lol nvm Well that's an odd statement. Yea it almost sounds like he was directly referencing Bleacher Nation Even setting that aside (there were a few places discussing that rumor), it's odd because the source of the rumor was Bruce, himself. Maybe folks mis-heard him or misinterpreted his comments or things changed in the last two days. Who knows. It was also odd because, I mean, like ... obviously the Cubs are "in discussions" to move "some" of their young players. They are constantly having those type of discussions. They may not reach "serious" levels, but, yeah, they're definitely having conversations - especially in the days leading up to tomorrow's roster deadline. It doesn't mean anything happens, but they wouldn't be doing their job not to be having discussions, particularly today and tomorrow.

I think they called it stress reaction Are there any pitchers recently who have had that injury/what was their return like/did they see any injuries happen soon after their return? http://bit.ly/ZSjPIE Yeah..... that did nothing. I went to google first to look for answers. All that came up were articles explaining what the injury is and that Garza had it. Nothing about what other pitchers have had it and how they returned from it. Blake Parker had the same injury back in June, came back in September, and then promptly went back on the DL with elbow problems.

Yay for self-promotion in a way that is actually, technically, just helping out Dave! http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/11/06/the-cubs-are-one-of-five-teams-showing-concrete-interest-in-korean-lefty-hyun-jin-ryu/ You should know you can feel free to promote any of your content here, but you may need to be prepared to defend yourself if you really are a fan of Kaplan! Haha, thanks, Tim. I would say I am a fan of many things that Kap does well.

Yay for self-promotion in a way that is actually, technically, just helping out Dave! http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/11/06/the-cubs-are-one-of-five-teams-showing-concrete-interest-in-korean-lefty-hyun-jin-ryu/

Could be a decent stopgap, and a possible reclamation-turned-mid-season-deal, too. Totally agree that the price - assuming the receiving team takes on all of the financial obligations (as the Cubs would) - would be negligible.

Seems like an awful lot for one year of Johnson given his health track record and his way down (for him) 2012.

Eh, I think his signing would have been affected by the announcement of the new CBA - even though he, at his age, would not be subject to the limitations, teams still were going nuts on talent acquisition at that time, knowing that the funds they had available to spend on ANYONE they wanted was about to be restricted (even if it wasn't going to be restricted on that specific player). We'll never know for sure because I don't know that we have a test case (other than Cespedes, but his current performance is kind of retroactively making it look like the A's didn't go nuts on his contract). My gut says teams were going to overspend on anyone and everyone during that period.

Completely agree with you. First off, while the Mexican League is considered a AAA league, it's actually equivalent to high-A or even A-ball. As you said, he signed for a minimal bonus despite being a free agent - another telling sign of what MLB teams think of him. Finally, if the Cubs thought anything of him, they wouldn't have shipped him off to Mexico for 2/3 of a season. When he signed, the scouting reports indicated 88-92 MPH. He's got to have a lot going for him if he's going to be a 3/4 starter with that velocity. To be fair, what Luke said was that Negrin could have the ceiling of a 3/4 or a 7th/8th inning guy, and while that might be optimistic, that's kind of what a ceiling is (the original scouting reports I read had his fastball at 90 to 94, for whatever that's worth). I very much don't think Luke was saying he expects that of Negrin. I feel dopey for not remembering, but I don't remember when Negrin's bonus info was reported. How small was it? You guys are quite right that the bonus would be very telling (though it was in the pre-new-CBA-announcement days, so even $100K was a decent bonus back then). Separately, the age thing is a little unfair, given that he defected at 27. I don't think we can know, off-hand, the reason he was lent to the Mexican League for most of this year, but there could be reasons that have nothing to do with his talent, and have everything to do with his particular adjustment to playing over here. Obviously it was just the first step, as he's now in the system, and already at AAA.

The only problem with that is potentially limiting the return on Garza by forcing a trade to LA. Not to mention Garza's triceps "cramp."

It will be interesting to see how his bonus stacks up to Concepcion's, as the relative meh-ness of their prospectdom sounds kind of similar going into the signing. Assuming Puig is unblocked (now that he's a FA) before July 2, that is.

Bingo. Unless you're the Rays pumping out stud pitchers like a puppy mill does Bichon Frises, it's not realistic to expect to be able build an entire team from within. Within a 3 year period, the Brewers produced Prince Fielder, Rickey Weeks, Corey Hart, Ryan Braun, and Yovanni Gallardo, and even rhey needed to spend money and trade their remaining prospects in order to contend. Anyone expecting the next Cubs playoff roster to feature Castro, Rizzo, Baez, Soler, Almora, Lake, Vitters, Jackson, Szczur, and Candelerio would be the ones suffering from delusion. That'd be a couple great bats on the bench! I kid. But the sad part is you naming 10 of the Cubs' best young talents and there isn't a pitcher among them. Telling.

I'm not sure why you think they would do that, or why that is true. If there is a mechanism in place for him to opt out of free agency, then he will have then opted out of his contract. You clipped out the context of the conversation that preceded this. My comment was addressing the issue of what happens if Soler reaches the bigs soon enough for his arb years - which he can "opt out" of his contract to head to arbitration - to *not* be the last three years of his nine-year deal. What happens in that ninth year, was the question. And I'm saying I suspect the contract, itself, addresses that possibility explicitly. It could be an "opt out" into free agency, but it could be something else entirely. And if the contract specifies that he somehow gets free agency as soon as he finishes those arb years (if he opts out of his contract and into arbitration at all), why wouldn't the Cubs hold him down to ensure they get that 9th year? It's extremely likely, given that all that it will entail is holding him down until he's like 22 and a half.

I'd assume he becomes a free agent. Assuming this is year 1, Soler would have to be in the big leagues for good after 1.25-1.5 minor league seasons. I doubt it's a problem. Yeah, if he's able to opt out of the deal for arbitration reasons, then he's opted out and presumably would be just like any other free agent to be. If true, then the Cubs will hold him down until they're ensured of getting their 9 years of control. In any event, I imagine the contract specifically anticipates that possible quirk (i.e., his arb years coming in, say, years 6, 7, 8 of the deal), and resolves whatever would happen in year 9, be it free agency, another year of arb, or a specified amount.

Very true. And that's pretty much what Goldstein said a little bit ago. He said he could see the Cubs getting a top 10 organizational guy for Dempster, which would obviously be great. Top 10 organizational guy? As in top 10 in the organization. Can't tell whether that would mean our organization or the trading one, but I'd guess the latter. Couldn't tell if he meant top 10 prospect or some subset of prospects within each organization, that everybody refers to as organizational players. Yeah, it's an awkward thing to describe succinctly, but: a guy who would fall in the top 10 of his own organization's top 10 prospect ranking. Obviously it depends on the system (a lot), but it's just a short-hand way of saying a potentially very good prospect, but one who is definitely not in the top 100 overall.

Very true. And that's pretty much what Goldstein said a little bit ago. He said he could see the Cubs getting a top 10 organizational guy for Dempster, which would obviously be great.

I think you definitely would still see impact prospects move for someone like Garza (or the Cubs wouldn't move him) - it seemed like he was mainly talking about rental players like Dempster, wouldn't you agree?