Bryants Disco Ball

Cardinals in a way look bad in this trade. They might have been able to get King Felix straight up for Craig about two years ago. Felix > Lackey

I know I've said this a bunch of times, but there are only so many Pujols misses a team gets before they can't spend for a while. It just seems like many on this board -- I acknowledge it's bad to make such broad generalizations -- want every single big name free agent each season no matter the years or the price without thinking much of the overall picture. And then many times a few years later, it's like, damn, glad we didn't sign that guy. Well, some of us clamor for all of them because the Cubs are signing none of them. I don't actually want them to have ALL of those guys; again, it would be ideally indicative of them being willing and able to build up and strengthen a team through means other dumpster diving and from the ground up via internal development. Big spending, more trades, internal development...I want it all, baby. I WANT IT ALL. I understand. I'm pretty bias because the way the Cubs are doing it is the exact why I love to see a baseball team built. I want to draft well, develop and then sign our own good players to big contracts a few years before they are set to hit free agency and before they start their decline. And keep that going (Easier said than done). The Cardinals did such a great job with Pujols. They used all his great years, had him help them win championships, and then let some other bastard reward him for all that past performance. Alright, I'm just rambling now.

I know I've said this a bunch of times, but there are only so many Pujols misses a team gets before they can't spend for a while. It just seems like many on this board -- I acknowledge it's bad to make such broad generalizations -- want every single big name free agent each season no matter the years or the price without thinking much of the overall picture. And then many times a few years later, it's like, damn, glad we didn't sign that guy.

I've stupidly wanted every big name FA that's come up since Theo and co. were hired and that's likely never going to change barring all of the prospects coming up and being amazing. This rebuild has broken what little baseball acumen I had and now I am meatballin' hard. Totally respect this response.

My boy Sammy Sofa wanted Cespedes the whole time, so I have to give him that. But he also wanted Pujols at $30 million, so in the end I'm OK with him not getting either of his wishes and they cancel each other out. To me, at least.

A lot of people would disagree with you, but when you see him making 30 million next season, then 32, 33, 33, 32 and 33 in each of the following five seasons and you weigh in that he probably will miss one of those years with Tommy John, I wouldn't do it either. I will admit that since most of our top guys legitimately are on the cusp of the majors, I just want to ride with all of them and see what happens. I realize that might not be wise since some will bust, but I just don't want to give up any of them and all their years of control. Not this first wave, at least. Once we are good again and we have some top prospects still in the minors, I'll be more for trading some to make us even stronger.

Agreed. It makes me sick even thinking about trading our prospects for David Price and then paying him huge money. The only thing that makes me feel better is that Theo and Jed are smart men and won't do something like that.

I think he's exactly what we need at the top of the lineup and would love for him to stay forever.

Is Baez the most likely of our prospects to get traded? That's what I keep thinking, although I hope I'm wrong.

So, the cutoff is only like three weeks into the season? For some reason, I always thought it was at the end of May that we had to wait.

Quite a few posters got pretty excited when the Cubs started playing better and winning some games. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while An almost 2 month long nut, eh? I was antagonizing a bit. Fact is, the Cubs lost two guys who play once every 5 days. 3 of their last 4 wins were achieved with starters who weren't them. There's no reason they can't keep winning ball games. It's the offense that is developing and getting better that's helping them win more lately. I honestly think between Wada, Hendricks, Beeler, etc. to replace Shark and Hammel that the Cubs can still do just fine the way they've been doing the last couple of months. I think a lot of people who are upset at the Cubs "blowing up the team" don't realize that the Cubs can still continue to perform at the same level they've been performing at. In addition, the Cubs were 3-17 in games started by Shark this season. Which means they weren't winning many games when he played any way.

I'd have a hard time believing that Jake Arrieta, who was all but given up on by one team and who put together a spectacular month of June after missing all of April this season, is too concerned about winning right now. I'd imagine he is more worried about pitching well and continuing to establish himself.

Just one correction, I'd say on the surface it looks like a star infielder rather than a solid one.

Yes, yes I agree. But it's a two-year window before stuff starts possibly hitting the fan a bit if we are going to be cheap.

I got about $55m if they fill out the roster with minimum guys. And that's with an entire infield, probably some outfielders, starting catcher, three pitchers (four if you like Hendricks or Straily) and the entire bullpen already in place. They can afford anything they want this offseason. whether they *will* or not is a different question. Agreed on it for this season, but if they are not going to be willing to spend big on payroll until a new TV deal in 2020, it's the 2017 season that starts to get tricky. Edit to add: Although we would have a lot of cheap guys that could fill out our lineup. So, maybe I'm wrong. I don't think they'll reach $150 million or anything, but they could be at $90-$100 million easy and still have a potentially elite team. They wouldn't NEED to have a $150+ million payroll It might be tough. Let's say that we have Stanton at $25 and two really top of the rotation guys at $18 per (which is probably too cheap) our payroll in 2017 is already at about 80 million with those three players, Rizzo and Castro. Which, I guess with guys like Bryant could make us really good with a $100 million payroll. But it would be tight.

I got about $55m if they fill out the roster with minimum guys. And that's with an entire infield, probably some outfielders, starting catcher, three pitchers (four if you like Hendricks or Straily) and the entire bullpen already in place. They can afford anything they want this offseason. whether they *will* or not is a different question. Agreed on it for this season, but if they are not going to be willing to spend big on payroll until a new TV deal in 2020, it's the 2017 season that starts to get tricky. Edit to add: Although we would have a lot of cheap guys that could fill out our lineup. So, maybe I'm wrong.

Is this a trick question? If the Cubs can miraculously get Stanton while only losing Russell and Soler from that first lineup how do you possibly not do it? Well, and Soler. But, yeah. I take the first lineup only because I really like that one too and we can then use the $25 per on Stanton for pitching. when the Cubs start selling out again money shouldn't be as much of a barrier. They could extend Stanton AND sign a Scherzer or a Lester if they really wanted to. Everyone else is basically lockedu p already, affordable arbitration, or league minimum I'm not ready to believe that they are going to be spending big money again until around 2020, but if what you say is true, for sure I'd be down with all of that.

Is this a trick question? If the Cubs can miraculously get Stanton while only losing Russell and Soler from that first lineup how do you possibly not do it? Well, and Soler. But, yeah. I take the first lineup only because I really like that one too and we can then use the $25 per on Stanton for pitching.

Crap. What does this mean for Olt?

i'm pretty confident this trade has nothing to do with albert almora Correct. It's about getting talent wherever we can get it.

Not sure if this has been posted, but it sounds like there is no PTBNL in this deal.

we already have him, and his name is kris bryant. Some of the experts will have Russell ahead of Bryant. It's sort of exciting to know that no matter how they rank them, Russell ahead of Bryant or Bryant ahead of Russell, that we have them both.

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw Russel's name mentioned. I would move Russel in a [expletive] heartbeat in a deal for Stanton. They can take Soler and Almora, too, if they need them. I do not believe this front office will be willing to trade three top prospects for two years of Stanton control before having to pay him $25 million per for up to 10 years. No way we give up that many years of control to then have to pay so much.

Yeah, I have never seen him play, but I have to admit I got excited by the stuff I could find and the fact that I really, really wanted an outfielder in whatever pitcher trade we made.

I'm OK with it. You don't get super-elite prospects without some real pain in what you give back. This.