Bryants Disco Ball

I believe Delgado is out of options, so if he doesn't make the rotation and they don't trade him, he's 100 percent going to the bullpen. He'd be a cool guy to trade for.....again.

If you're looking at bWAR, yes. fWAR is better though, so look at that. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3340&position=P 4.9 in 2011 with the Cubs. But yeah, I mean, even the 3.5 shouldn't be a shocking number, IMO. That's pretty good and he's never been THAT great of a pitcher. Thanks. So, even looking at his fWAR he's basically been a solid pitcher but nothing even close to special for most of his career. Which I guess is Matt Garza, but still seemed surprising to me.

On a minor league deal. That's surprising.

When I look at Matt Garza's WAR, am I reading correctly that he's never had higher than a 3.5?

With the talk of Vitters playing OF and Bryant's future as an OF, I'm wondering if we can find one more 3B to convert to the OF so we can have three former 3B as our starting OF. Ryan Braun might come cheap?

Or they may have quite a large one, since plenty of teams are still looking for good SP. The Orioles, Blue Jays, Angels, Mariners, and Diamondbacks are all actively looking, with the Yankees, Indians, and Dodgers in the market too, for the right guy. With just 2 guys that cost a draft pick and Bronson Arroyo on the market, as far as guys that can be considered mid rotation types. Yeah, I think the market will be real good for him. No draft pick compensation and likely will be willing to take a one-year deal. That's a nice combo for a contending team.

The owners of the Cubs and Brewers could not be more different right now. One doesn't seem to care if the fans stop coming to the games and won't spend any money while having a farm system that hopefully leads to long-term success, while the other doesn't seem to have a vision for building a winner and just wants to do enough to excite fans and keep drawing close to 3 million.

This really, really blows. But anybody expecting otherwise was just trying to fool themselves.

I actually think it's 1. Dodgers; 2. Yanks. 3. Cubs. 4. Nobody else.

Awwww Gordon is pretending he has sources. He was the first one to have the Cubs trading for Matt Garza. That was a totally different FO, fwiw (and I'm not saying he doesn't have sources...just that that information is largely irrelevant) Good point.

Yeah, it's understandable. We all want Tanaka and don't want to hear anything bad. But the fact has always been the same: The Yanks and Dodgers both want him, and I just don't see one of those two not getting him. All the other reports, good or bad, mean nothing to me. We ain't getting him. (But I hope I'm wrong).

Awwww Gordon is pretending he has sources. He was the first one to have the Cubs trading for Matt Garza.

Injuries are part of my concern, sure. No matter the reason, the BoSox lost their ass on Matsuzaka. A total of 2 quality seasons for more than $102M spent. It wouldn't worry me as much if I thought the Cubs would throw money at the problem if it didn't work out the way they hoped. But if he's a bust, I have the feeling the Cubs would allow it to hamper future negotiations. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my fear. And just for the record, I'd love for Tanaka to be a Cub no matter the cost. I'm just worried about what happens to the team as a whole and the approach going forward if Tanaka where to bomb. It's just an inherent risk when you sign a big FA, especially a pitcher. The Cubs are in the position where they need to spend to acquire someone like him. He's young, they desperately need starting pitching, they have money to spend, there's this rumored TV deal..it's all good. I agree with this. He's the proper guy to get. However, this board always thinks we should spend whatever it takes to get everybody. But I always try to point out that you can't have everybody, so you better be really happy with the one or two we eventually get. (I know about the Dodgers, we aren't them). So, when people wanted Albert Pujols, that's your ticket. You don't get him and three others the next three years. I really, really don't believe anybody would be happy with Albert and the remainder of his contract just a few years in. Instead you prefer nobody all three years? Oh, no. I want Tanaka, but if it ends up costing as much per season as Garza and another No. 2 or No. 3 pitcher I want that instead. If I can get Tanaka and one of those other guys because the Cubs are spending the money that their market and franchise value indicates they should? Oh, hell yeah.

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that. With what you think mattering the very least of all. Agreed.

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that.

Spending more overall than what? I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers. I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point. http://www.netmeister.org/blog/images/implied-facepalm.jpg When I'm getting pictures as responses, I know I haven't done well today. Sorry to all. Even the best players go 0-for-4 with a few strikeouts some days.

Spending more overall than what? I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers. I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point. Wait...what? Why would they be trying to sign Tanaka for that much if they're just going to keep a low payroll? Because even they know it looks really, really bad to have the fourth-lowest payroll in MLB when you're the Chicago Cubs. So, you think signing Tanaka for $25 per and having the same type of payroll this season means we are about to up payroll by $25 or $50 million next season? If you do, cool. I hope you're right.

Fine, screw it. I wish we would have decided to do this sooner and gotten Ellsbury and Choo as well.

Spending more overall than what? I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers. I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason? I admit I might be missing something.

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination. So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive. I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue. But signing Tanaka...would be...spending money...like....that *Head explodes* And still not having a huge payroll. Can we do it again after doing it with Tanaka? And again? Again? Again? That's when we are the Dodgers. I hope we can.

Hey, I'm glad you're 100 percent sure Tanaka is a TOR guy. I hope if we sign him for $25 million a season that you're right.

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination. So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive. I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue.

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all." Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years. I agree with all of that. It's still only a handful of guys, though. We have no idea if the next two or three won't bust. I want Tanaka very badly and am willing to overpay, but unlike some, I do think there should be limits. At some point it makes a lot more sense to go get Matt Garza again instead. Why would at some point would it make more sense to get the 30-year-old, injury-plagued Matt Garza for the team trying to rebuild that desperately needs starting pitchers both now and down the line? Because I think Matt Garza still has four quality seasons left, and I think we can get him on a Kyle Loshe contract and not a Clayton Kershaw one. I'm not one who thinks it's going to be 5 years until we are ready to win, so Garza is young enough that his age doesn't concern me.

Actually, this board has been pretty clearly divided over the Cubs' spending for a long time. And simply comparing one big contract to another is pretty faulty. Hell, just given the difference in age alone makes this troublesome. But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now. I believe Tanaka is a guy to go all out for, but it just seems nobody cares what it takes to get him. And, I know I do keep saying "Most people." That's unfair. It just feels like it to me.