Bryants Disco Ball

Are you really taking the stance that there are no bad contracts? No, but a bad contract does not make a good player bad. There are no championships for the most wins/dollar. Not sure I agree with that. I always thought Fuki was a good ballplayer, but not $13.5 million good. So, while he was pretty good, his contract paid him like he needed to be really good due to what it did to the rest of the team. His contract made it less likely we could fill another hole.

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive. It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency. First, Baker and Feldman are middle to back of the rotation starters that hve question marks attached to them. As for doing more than a lot of teams in free agency, the other teams didn't start with a 100-loss team. We ended the season better than a 100 loss team, when you consider a pitcher like Garza coming back and Jeff S. not being shut down. I stand by that the Cubs have been more active than most teams in free agency, and not because they had to be due to how bad they are perceived to be. There are a bunch of middle road teams/close to contending teams that have literally done nothing so far. And like was said previously, it ain't over yet. I'd be shocked if the Cubs don't make one or two more nice moves. It won't be of the Josh Hamilton kind, so people will dismiss it or forget about it quickly when the Cubs miss out on one of their targets, but whatever.

I actually expect some to be dealt next year for either David Price or King Felix.

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive. It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency. Give me a break. Please expand, if you can. What part do you disagree with?

It just seems like when they do things that are active, people still bash them or forget quickly. Signing Baker, Feldman and our new reliever isn't really being that inactive. It's more than a lot of teams have done so far in free agency.

Jackson and Vitters got called up in early August. So, even if we all knew they were overmatched by Aug. 15-20, there isn't that much more of a season left at that point. It's not like the Cubs were horrible or unwatchable up to July 31. If a team loses 100 games, you imagine that the whole season was horrible. It really wasn't.

2. The difference between losing 84 and 94 games lies in the entertainment value. I'd like my favorite team to have a chance to win games sometimes. . No offense, but that's such a meatballish way of looking at things. If this team has no chance of making the playoffs, all else being equal, give me the benefits of losing more games. Furthermore, I was actually pretty entertained last season. - At the beginning, we had some new faces to watch to see how they'd do. We also had Starlin Castro, of course. - We then had a stretch of like 25 games where we had the best record in MLB. - We had Rizzo come up. - The trade deadline that made for an interesting time. - We had Jackson and Vitters called up to watch.

That would cost us Reed Johnson, though.

Anibal Sanchez is the "right kind of free agent" when you're a big market team that needs to get better and needs starting pitcher and he's available and it won't cause you any prospects or young players. I can respect and agree with that. I guess I'm just not in love with him more than a few other pitchers who I think would cost less and command fewer years.

Agreed. I'm willing to go to $15 million for 5 on Sanchez for that exact reason. If it will shut people up on here for a while, it will be worth it. And I can't stop just coming to the board even if impatient bastards annoy the hell out of me, because I love this board too much. I think the FO offered Sanchez 5/75 because it would be a move line with their plan (he's relatively young and productive), and it was more than he was being offered elsewhere. If the FO were making moves just to "shut people up", I'd really be worried. No. No. I didn't say the front office did that to shut people up. I said I am fine with signing Sanchez for that amount even if I don't care that much about him so that people on this board will shut the hell up. Thus, I'm willing to give him $15 million per year of their money so that people here don't keep driving me nuts.

If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction. So, people just wanted them to be the Dodgers of this season? Sign Pujols and a few other big guns and let's go for it? That's fine, but that just wasn't going to happen unless they were the Dodgers of this season. And, nobody has really ever been the Dodgers of this season. Except the Yankees or the Red Sox, and now the Angels. The Cubs are a big money team. I think the Ricketts are choosing to go (relatively) cheap until the stadium and other constructions and the TV deal are ironed out even though they don't have to. I think the FO are content to wait that out. Yes, I want the Cubs to spend big and build smart from within; the two are not mutually exclusive. I gain no extra pleasure out of seeing a winning team made for less money than another. I just want a good team. And you will get it. I will duck when I say this......but just be patient. They will spend beautifully when the time is right. It will be the blend of home grown guys and the right free agents. Time goes fast. Especially when you get past age 30. It won't be long, as 2015 will be here before you know it.

Agreed. I'm willing to go to $15 million for 5 on Sanchez for that exact reason. If it will shut people up on here for a while, it will be worth it. And I can't stop just coming to the board even if impatient bastards annoy the hell out of me, because I love this board too much.

Exactly. They're approaching this like they can present a "fair offer" as if they have something else besides money/years to entice FA's here right now. They don't. Odds are you have to pay extra to bring people to a bad team. Then I'm willing to move on and get Marcum or somebody else on a one-year deal, wait for our prospects to grow another season and get closer, and then sign another Marcum to another one year deal next year. Because, to me, Sanchez and Marcum are the same type of pitcher.

If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction. So, people just wanted them to be the Dodgers of this season? Sign Pujols and a few other big guns and let's go for it? That's fine, but that just wasn't going to happen unless they were the Dodgers of this season. And, nobody has really ever been the Dodgers of this season.

I'm not even that excited about Sanchez, but if it gets a lot of the board to shut the hell up about the Cubs' future and their slow moving plans, it will be worth it. For the record, I think Sanchez is a fine pitcher. But I don't really care about him at $15 million for five seasons, and I'm sure as heck not interested in Nuts' idea -- even though he's still my favorite dude who posts on this site -- about going to six years. He, and some of you other impatient bastards, were also willing to give Pujols his 10 years and $30 million per last season. If we had done that, we probably couldn't spend on Sanchez any way.

Gotcha. I was reading the summary at MLB Trade Rumors, and they wrote it incorrectly. That makes a lot more sense.

Surprised to see the Cubs offering to pay only $10 million of the $36 million owed to Soriano, if this report is true. I thought we'd be offering to pay a heck of lot more than that.

It is possible that Brandon McCarthy just really wanted to pitch in Arizona, while at the same time the Cubs wanted him but had no say in it. It's possible.

So, did he come at this price because he only wanted to pitch in a few places? Because it would seem more money would have been out there for him.

Oops. You've already expressed the feelings I just expressed. Never mind.

Cool. But I'm not going to lie. I can't really get excited until he has signed and the Cubs have announced it.

This was awesome. :lol:

If this were us, I'd wait at LEAST another day or two before I took it seriously and got either happy or mad.

I don't know that it's bad, but it's probably the worst of the available options. This. Liriano is fine, but there are better options available. I kinda view him as a consolation prize for missing out on McCarthy or Marcum. Nice to have at the end of the day, but not what you really wanted. Understandable. But if there are better options, it also means there is a bigger market for those options. The most difficult part in getting guys like Marcum or McCarthy to come here is not really the money. It's trying to convince them to sign for just one year while also just being a 3-month rental. They can sign where they want for one year and go to a good team. So, it can be a tough sell. That's why it's too bad Haren was injured. It was perfect.

Nope. We would be able to get a pick for him if he sticks with us all year and we make a qualifying offer next offseason.