CubsWin

Yeah, I heard that. The Cubs already slim chances just got a little slimmer.

You'll never know if that is the case though, and any reports suggesting it to be the case will be suspect. That is why the only thing that matters is if they actually do sign the guy. We can hear about interest and offers, and the willingness to spend, but as long as the actual spending does not go up, I don't see any way to take solace in the notion that they would theoretically spend more in a different world. The money is there. That much is obvious. The willingness to allow it to be spent is the question. And if there was a report that said that the Cubs bid was $50 million less than the winning bid and that management was held back on orders from ownership, we should just dismiss that one, too? The onus is on them to actually spend, not just have reporters indicate they were willing to spend. I'm sorry, that's just positional crazy talk setting yourself up for an "I told you so" when the likely event of the Cubs not getting Tanaka comes to pass. They can't force Tanaka to come to Chicago if he wants to pitch on the west coast or for the hallowed Yankees or the champion Red Sox. The onus is on them to go as far with the money as they can before it just becomes stupid to offer more. Everything else is out of their hands. Whether you are open to believe the stories reported on what was offered is up to you. Personally, if the reports are that they shorted the rest of the field or didn't push their offer outside the comfort zone of player value, I'll believe it and be very disappointed. As far as spending in general, the onus is on them to spend it in a way that will build a healthy franchise that wins on a consistent basis and gives the Cubs their best chance of winning a world series. It's not about winning as quickly as possible. It's not about appeasing impatient (rightfully or wrongfully) fans. It's about winning a world series. Hopefully more than one, and that means getting to the playoffs consistently. We are all allowed to have different levels of patience with that process and have differing opinions on what types of players would best build a healthy franchise that won't be a flash in the pan.

Those are awesome. I had so many of those cards. Talk about memory lane. Thanks, OleMiss.

Wow, they ripped it. It's pretty rip-able.

We are essentially saying the same thing here. From my post above: That's not where SSR's and my discussion started, however. It was more about what should the Cubs have done differently thus far this off season given the state of the rebuild. But I agree, it would be nice if the Cubs had a lot more money to spend than they currently do. I think any fan of any team would think the same thing. How much they actually have to spend is not public knowledge though, is it?

Because some team out there would all of a sudden be willing to give the Cubs what they have been asking for in return for Samardzija? Or because the Cubs management is incompetent and the ownership is cheap?

You'll never know if that is the case though, and any reports suggesting it to be the case will be suspect. That is why the only thing that matters is if they actually do sign the guy. We can hear about interest and offers, and the willingness to spend, but as long as the actual spending does not go up, I don't see any way to take solace in the notion that they would theoretically spend more in a different world. The money is there. That much is obvious. The willingness to allow it to be spent is the question. And if there was a report that said that the Cubs bid was $50 million less than the winning bid and that management was held back on orders from ownership, we should just dismiss that one, too?

Depends on what real world you're talking about. If it's "real world" where Cubs can't afford more than 85M payroll, then no, I probably wouldn't sign Ellsbury to 7/160. If it's actual real world, then yes, I absolutely would. I'm talking about the same real world as you are. In that real world I'd rather spend the money on a 25 year old TOR pitcher than 30 year old OFer. Or do you doubt the Cubs sincerity to do everything they can to sign Tanaka and think they're just being cheapskates? I think Tanaka fits better into the Cubs plan. I think it's wiser to spend money on likely future performance than past performance. Do we disagree? My point is in the real world, there's no reason it needs to be an either-or proposition. And when we wind up with Jason [expletive] Hammel as the crown jewel of our offseason it's going to be that much more annoying that we forced it to be. In the real world, it's almost always an either-or-proposition. In the real world, funds aren't unlimited. When was the last time the Cubs went out and signed the top two most sought after and expensive free agents on the market? When was the last time the Cubs did something close to that and fans were pleased with the result? Theo & Co. have patiently worked to get this very valuable commodity called financial flexibility. And, we agree the only reason to have it is to use it. My point is what makes the difference between building a long term winning organization or a flash in the pan is who you choose to exhaust your resources to acquire. The choice isn't between one or the other necessarily. Given enough financial flexibility and two players that fit what your team is looking for, the Cubs could get both. The choice is what kind of player do you want to acquire at this stage of a rebuild. A very good 30 year old OFer with a recent history of injury and some offensive inconsistency resulting in an career OPS of .789 thus far. Or a 25 year old, potential TOR pitcher who hasn't thrown one pitch in the major leagues but has been lights out in a league similar to AAA+ consistently over the last several seasons and about whom your scouts have glowing reports. We don't have to agree on which one. Legit arguments could be made for either. But that's the choice. Not one or the other or both or none. But what kind of player is worth diminishing your financial flexibility for? You say go all in and outspend the Yankees for Ellsbury. I say do that for Tanaka.

They've done everything they can to position themselves as a team who was interested and did the right thing to let some other team overpay for him. This used to be known as the MacPhail Maneuver, but Epstein is making it his own. Keep going. I like your style. This worked wonders last year with prospects.

Well, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, but other team's chances sure seem to be better than the Cubs at this point.

Awesome. Thanks, Raisin. Its so close, I could have gone either way. Went with Bryant. Gut feeling. and my gut is sizable, so...

Please let 17 Seconds secretly be Masahiro Tanaka. Please.

Ellsbury and one of a host of starting pitchers who aren't Scott Baker or some other such rehab/flier [expletive]. Because they're good players. So, we are dealing in the real world now. Do you want the Cubs to beat the Yankees offer of 7 years and $153 million? Depends on what real world you're talking about. If it's "real world" where Cubs can't afford more than 85M payroll, then no, I probably wouldn't sign Ellsbury to 7/160. If it's actual real world, then yes, I absolutely would. I'm talking about the same real world as you are. In that real world I'd rather spend the money on a 25 year old TOR pitcher than 30 year old OFer. Or do you doubt the Cubs sincerity to do everything they can to sign Tanaka and think they're just being cheapskates? I think Tanaka fits better into the Cubs plan. I think it's wiser to spend money on likely future performance than past performance. Do we disagree?

For those who like pitchFX and are wondering if Tanaka will be a bust, here's an interesting article from ESPN on the subject... http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43300/a-pitchfx-look-at-masahiro-tanaka

My answer to that question is yes, it would have been wise to try and do more to make the 2014 roster better. So who do you sign and why? Ellsbury and one of a host of starting pitchers who aren't Scott Baker or some other such rehab/flier [expletive]. Because they're good players. So, we are dealing in the real world now. Do you want the Cubs to beat the Yankees offer of 7 years and $153 million?

My answer to that question is yes, it would have been wise to try and do more to make the 2014 roster better. So who do you sign and why?

Yea for...news...

I don't think it's been in existence long enough for there to be a long history to check it against. The stat is dependent upon watching a ton of video and grading the type of contact the player makes with the ball whether it is hit on the ground, on a line or higher in the air. It's essentially a better indicator of luck vs. hard contact than BABIP and presents a more accurate, personalized baseline to judge whether the players ability to hit safely was inflated or deflated by luck. In that sense, it shouldn't predict anything to do with likely future development of a player but should speak to their likelihood to return to the norm in a coming season.

I posted this in a different thread, but thought it may apply to this discussion. A very interesting article by Mark Simon of ESPN.com involving a new stat (at least one that I've never heard of) on the Cubs signing of one Justin Ruggiano. The stat is WHAV or well-hit average. To sum up the article, Simon provides a pretty strong statistical argument for why Justin Ruggiano will have a rebound season and may be more than just the short end of a RF platoon.

Oh man. Hope everyone's okay. Where did you hear this? I can't find anything on the Google.

To date, there have been no additions to the Cubs roster that are likely to impact 2015. Wright will be arb eligible. Veres has a club option for 2015 which only makes him more flippable, and even if he does stick around, his "impact" will be slight. In the grand scheme, this off season has done nothing to further the rebuild. And yet, 2014 can still be the year the rebuild takes it's largest leaps forward. Seeing how Baez, Bryant, Almora, Soler, Johnson, Edwards and Alcantara all progress or don't progress will affect how Theo & Co. approach 2015 more than anything. But there are more questions that will be answered, important ones in there own right. Castro and Rizzo. Olt and Arrieta. Sweeney and Lake. Grimm and Rondon. Vizcaino and Hendricks. That's 17 players who could either be playing for the Cubs in 2015 or solidify the front office's confidence that they will be key contributors shortly thereafter. So despite all my disappointment in this off season to date, would it have been wise for the Cubs to do more than they have (outside of possibly shoring up the back end of the rotation with guys like Hammel and Baker) with so many wait-and-see questions yet to be answered?

Name me one thing that doesn't bug you, Kyle...

A nice hybrid approach. man the polls were the best part of last offseason. :) I fear they may be the best part of this offseason, too. Come on, Tanaka! http://thesportsfanjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/8167762_orig.jpg

Agreed. I just can't shake the feeling that the Cubs aren't going to get anything close to the new "market value" and I really don't want to wait until 2020 for significant added revenue. The increasing pile of things they've missed out on, are missing out on or just seem to be in limbo from is killing me. Tell me about it. I'm having a hard time waiting 3 weeks to see if they miss out on Tanaka. I really, really, really want to be a more positive person going forward, but [expletive], they're doing their best to make it tough. I'd kill for one singular, definitive bit of news a la the excitement of getting Theo. At this point just breaking ground on the Jumbotron would have me crying tears of joy. Welp, there's a small jumbotron in left center already up...in the Cubs new facility in Mesa. Suck it, non-existent Mesa rooftop owners. http://www.ktar.com/emedia/az/32/3287/328745.jpg

Isn't it the day after the draft, which I believe is June 5th this season? Draft starts June 5th and runs through the 7th. So I guess June 8th would be the first day a FA who has the designation could sign without it.