Bryants Disco Ball

Because their PR campaign is "we'll try on a few guys but not really hit on anything because we can't afford it." Ellsbury is a very good player and you wouldn't come close to $21m for him. That is absurd. You aren't going to get very good players if you aren't willing to pay very high dollars. Well, hopefully it will make you feel better when I express disappointment after we don't get Tanaka. Besides, if we had hit on the guys this board wanted in the past two seasons, then we couldn't afford* Ellsbury any way since Albert Pujols and B.J. Upton are already being paid a crap ton by us. *unless we are run by the Dodgers

7 years at 22 per is near the upper bound of what I would've been willing to give Ellsbury, but I don't think it's an unreasonable deal at all. I can respect the opinion, but I'm shocked people would think it's a reasonable deal. He's a fine but injury prone baseball player. That's pretty much it. If they are going to give out a 22 million per season long-term contract, I want somebody much better. There have been less than 10 hitters more valuable than Ellsbury the last 3 years: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=&filter=&players= And that's a cumulative number that penalizes Ellsbury for missing half of 2012. If you want someone "much better", then you're limiting yourself to Trout, Cabrera, Cano, and McCutchen. I have no confidence Ellsbury will remain close to as productive during the majority of this contract, and I'm very confident he will break down. This list is awesome and nobody can dispute the facts, but the list probably showed Albert Pujols was worth his contract, too.

Well at least we know the front office's pr campaign is working. Yeah, no. How else do you explain not being welling to pay "even close" to $21m to a player of that ability? Furthermore, if their campaign is working, then why did I say I'm all for them going nuts for Tanaka?

Well at least we know the front office's pr campaign is working. Yeah, no. How else do you explain not being welling to pay "even close" to $21m to a player of that ability? Easy. I don't share your love of his ability.

7 years at 22 per is near the upper bound of what I would've been willing to give Ellsbury, but I don't think it's an unreasonable deal at all. I can respect the opinion, but I'm shocked people would think it's a reasonable deal. He's a fine but injury prone baseball player. That's pretty much it. If they are going to give out a 22 million per season long-term contract, I want somebody much better.

Well at least we know the front office's pr campaign is working. Yeah, no.

I'm all for going nuts to get Tanaka, but I'm shocked so many people are disappointed on losing out on Ellsbury for that money. Or at least that's the way it sounds. No way in hell I'm giving him $21 million per season. Not even close. And that's even if we have a bunch of money to spend.

I was surprised to see he had a 32 home run season on his resume. I realize he has been hurt for parts of different seasons, but how did that dude go yard that many times in one year?

I can respect your excitement, but Shark is controlled through 2015 and Beachy is controlled through 2016. Doesn't really seem to be that great of a difference for where we are at, especially when you consider the injuries. I'm all for trading Shark, but it wouldn't be in a package where Beachy is the top dog.

Sorry. But I'm going to need more than just what ABTY says -- who I've learned is right sometimes and not so right a lot of other times -- to be doing a sigh over our front office being very wrong on three MLB players when this might all just be fantasy. Are you offering the same disbelief when he talks about moves we were ready to make that sound amazing. Our front office is badass, but they're capable of horrifying mistakes too. Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I offer the same disbelief. The dude's hit rate isn't amazing enough for me to really put enough stock into it to care.

Sorry. But I'm going to need more than just what ABTY says -- who I've learned is right sometimes and not so right a lot of other times -- to be doing a sigh over our front office being very wrong on three MLB players when this might all just be fantasy.

That's...concerning .....if it's even true.

At least you were nice about it. You did say thank you.

Why? BJ Upton was pretty [expletive] cool for 6 seasons prior to last year and was only 27 at the time. I know all the numbers we all love seemed to favor him, but he just never seemed to be worth all the hype that comes with that type of contract. His contract seemed right in line with that he was producing. Basically what happened is just something that's total hindsight; nobody thought he'd topple off of a cliff like this at 28 barring a major injury. It's probably because I'm obsessed with on-base percentage that I didn't want him and thought he was overhyped. I realize he brings other things to the table, but I just don't want a guy who has a hard time getting on base and has no way of contributing on offense when he's not getting a hit.

Why? BJ Upton was pretty [expletive] cool for 6 seasons prior to last year and was only 27 at the time. I know the numbers we all love seemed to favor him, but he just never felt worth the hype that comes with that type of contract.

It's not a matter of having to let him go. I don't see it as very likely we'll contend in 2014 and I'm not at all confident Shark is ever going to be more than he is right now. I'll take the very solid prospect package and the extra 15-20 mill he'll be getting in a few years to spend elsewhere. To not spend elsewhere I actually think we will use it to spend on signing some of the prospects to contract extensions (Yes, this is assuming some of them pan out), which is the plan I like better anyway. Free agency pretty much blows and is not the way I want to build a team. So we lock up Baez and Bryant to 5/35 contracts, what do we do with the other money? You can only spend so much on Josh Johnson and Ryan Church Perhaps extend Ryan Sweeney for another five years? But, yeah, I understand. Although, my dream would be to sign Baez and Bryant (if the real deals) to 10-year contracts. Only a dream, though.

100 percent agree. I wouldn't want to run it with financial limitations. But I don't believe I am being given that option. So, yes, I believe the Cubs should be able to spend $200 million per season (still wisely, of course) due to their market. But for whatever reason, they are not being allowed to by ownership. So, if that is going to be the case, then I need the team to be run more like the Cardinals.

It is when you think the top end of free agency is a pool of guys that mostly have had their best years and you'll be paying them a ton of money for doing a lot of great things for his former team. It's why I didn't want Albert Pujols. It's why I didn't want B.J. Upton. Josh Hamilton. It's why I don't want Robinson Cano. The only guy I wanted the past two years was Prince Fielder. If you find me a superstar in his prime, go bonkers. I just don't know how many times it happens. It's why I love second tier free agency. The one where a good front office can get quality guys for less years and a lot less money. Why are you trying to save the owners' money? There's nowhere else to spend it. You're not going to max out this team's financial wherewithal by locking up young rookies. Again, though, I have no problem signing a superstar to a big contract. It just has to fit in terms of age and productions. When Bryce Harper and Mike Trout hit free agency at 25, yes, I will want the Cubs to go wild for them. Even 10 years. When Albert Pujols does at 31, not so much.

It is when you think the top end of free agency is a pool of guys that mostly have had their best years and you'll be paying them a ton of money for doing a lot of great things for his former team. It's why I didn't want Albert Pujols. It's why I didn't want B.J. Upton. Josh Hamilton. It's why I don't want Robinson Cano. Upton was 28 going into this season. Pujols was 32 going into his first year with the Angels. Josh Hamilton turned 32 a month into his first season with the Angels. Yeah, Upton had a monstrously bad year, but why are you lumping him in with Pujols and Hamilton as if he's an older player? Fielder was 28 his first year with Detroit. And come on, the Cubs should be a team like the Dodgers or Phillies or Angels that can take the hit of 2-3 bum years in a big contract for a top tier player. Why would it be a bad thing if they could afford to do that? I shouldn't have lumped Upton in there, correct. It was more I didn't want him because he was way overpriced for how good he is and is being paid like he's a superstar. Or at least close to it. If the Cubs were run like the Dodgers with that type of money - and, hey, I agree they should be able to - then why not? Who cares then? But when you're not, I rather run my team like the Cardinals than the Phillies. Sign my own guys to contract extensions and make a few big splashes on guys who are 25-27 in age that I feel comfortable giving seven years and big money to. When they come around, of course. Which isn't that often.

It is when you think the top end of free agency is a pool of guys that mostly have had their best years and you'll be paying them a ton of money for doing a lot of great things for his former team. It's why I didn't want Albert Pujols. It's why I didn't want B.J. Upton. Josh Hamilton. It's why I don't want Robinson Cano. The only guy I wanted the past two years was Prince Fielder. If you find me a superstar in his prime, go bonkers. I just don't know how many times it happens. It's why I love second tier free agency. The one where a good front office can get quality guys for less years and a lot less money.

It's not a matter of having to let him go. I don't see it as very likely we'll contend in 2014 and I'm not at all confident Shark is ever going to be more than he is right now. I'll take the very solid prospect package and the extra 15-20 mill he'll be getting in a few years to spend elsewhere. To not spend elsewhere I actually think we will use it to spend on signing some of the prospects to contract extensions (Yes, this is assuming some of them pan out), which is the plan I like better anyway. Free agency pretty much blows and is not the way I want to build a team. LOL, good for you man. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg Was it something I said?

It's not a matter of having to let him go. I don't see it as very likely we'll contend in 2014 and I'm not at all confident Shark is ever going to be more than he is right now. I'll take the very solid prospect package and the extra 15-20 mill he'll be getting in a few years to spend elsewhere. To not spend elsewhere I actually think we will use it to spend on signing some of the prospects to contract extensions (Yes, this is assuming some of them pan out), which is the plan I like better anyway. Free agency pretty much blows and is not the way I want to build a team.

For a guy who doesn't really care who we get because I don't care much about a manager, I wasn't even paying close attention to this search. But now I have to, because we damn well better not give up a top prospect for a flipping manager unless he's a player-manager.

This is such a small part of your really great post, but it actually got me thinking. A-Rod was 25 when he signed with Texas in January 2001, and Tanaka will be 25 in November. You're right. It's not often a player that good and that young is free to sign anywhere. Just imagine if Trout and Harper don't sign extensions. We will be seeing the same thing in a few years.

I'm so glad I don't watch 24 hour sports networks anymore. Amen to that 95% of the sports news I get is from this message board. Which means we need to be thankful for the people here who do watch the 24 hours sports networks, thus we can get our sports news from this one board.