Deeg

As of now, Baez has a higher K-rate and lower OPS than Olt. That's not to suggest that we should be writing off Baez or even seriously worrying, but that just maybe Olt is being written off too quickly as Baez has only 75 fewer PAs in the majors this year than Olt (and Olt barely had a cup of coffee before that).

How was Straily's velocity?

Not quite. The key paragraph is this one: The key here is that Ricketts follows through on his promise to start acting like a big-market owner again. Until (unless) he does, the Cubs face longshot odds to finish the journey all these talented kids will start.

It's nothing against Castro - I just like Bryant's bat at 3B and Russell's glove at SS. Castro's maximum value is as a SS - where his offensive numbers are well above-average there, as a 3B they would be middle of the pack. And the equation with moving Castro to 3B isn't just how much his value declines from SS to 3B - it's how much Bryant's declines from 3B to LF. It's not as though you're going to give him away, but if Castro's maximum value is as a SS and his maximum value to the Cubs is somewhere else, it makes sense to see if you can get appropriate return for what he's worth as a SS.

To a mid-market or small-market team that's trying to contend, Valbuena could be attractive as a secondary piece. If there's one with several high-ceiling arms, there could be a match. That's why this whole notion that "he's not good enough to fetch the kind of arm we need, so he's too good to trade" doesn't hold water. There's no reason Valbuena has to be the headliner to be a useful trade asset.

So we make the MLB team worse because we're scared to weaken the farm system. Lovely. The love affair some folks have with Valbuena is almost as silly as the mythology that's grown up around Bosio. He's a useful player and he's cheap - he's not a foundational piece. There's no reason to give him away, but there's also no reason to back away from a deal that can help the club get to the next level because you don't want to give up Luis Valbuena.

Yes, they can. But give a lot of guys the talent Duncan had to work with and they'll look pretty good. A really good pitching coach can occasionally find a fixable flaw that will turn a guy's career around, but for the most part it comes from the player - half the battle for a pitching coach is to not make things worse and be a good psychologist. Bosio seems to be a good pitching coach, but to rely on him - or any pitching coach - as the cornerstone of building a staff is pure folly.

I'm perfectly happy to trade top prospects in the right deal. But if it comes down to Valbuena or adding a second good prospect to that right deal, Valbuena is the obvious choice. I think it's ludicrous the amount of faith Bosio is receiving, as if he's some kind of miracle worker. He didn't have that rep when we hired him - did he used to be a bad pitching coach and now he's a good one? No - he is what he always was, a pretty good coach who can help some guys and not others. Good pitchers make good pitchers, not good pitching coaches. The idea that we can build a postseason-ready pitching staff by bringing in a bunch of stiffs and letting Bosio turn them into perennial all-stars is pretty far-fetched.

Where does this assumption that Valbuena can only bring back lottery tickets come from? He's not a headliner in a deal for an elite talent, but he doesn't have to be. He could be very useful as a second or third piece in a significant trade. No one is advocating giving Valbuena away. But I'd sure as hell rather deal him than one of our elite prospects, if the right deal is out there.

What was Dubrount's velocity like today?

Again, it really comes down to the question of how motivated the Marlins are to deal Stanton. The Cubs are the guy who goes camping with hit buddy wearing track shoes - they don't have to be faster than the bear, they just have to be faster than their buddy. They don't have to pay what Florida thinks Stanton is worth, or even what an objective assessment might say he's worth - they just have to make the best offer they think is reasonable and it'd probably still be the best one on the table. Then it's up to Miami to take it or leave it.

Sustainable.

I'm not the one who brought it up. It's stupid. I have no issue dealing for him on our terms, which is actually what Deeg is saying too. Sulley brought up 2 of the top 5 and I'm not going there for him. Basically, yeah. I wouldn't give up any of our top four guys for him, but if you could make a deal without them I'd be all over it. I just don't think you can sell this guy short - he's one of the very best players in baseball at 24. Not potentially, not if all goes well, not someday - right now.

If you want to cherrypick WAR, Oliver is projecting 6.5 per over the next four years. He's already at 5.6, and he was at 5.6 two years ago as a 22 year-old. Or you could isolate one season where he missed 50 games and dealt with injuries and give that the most weight, your choice.

I think if you deal for Stanton and Soler isn't part of the package, you're more or less banking on Bryant staying at 3B and Schwarber at C.

I suppose that is what it boils down to for me. I think some people are underestimating just what it will take to get him. It really depends on how desperate Florida is going to be to get real value, because they know there's no chance they'll actually re-sign him when the time comes and the longer they wait, the less they get. Would something like Castro, Almora, McKinney and Pierce Johnson get it done? Probably not - but it might just be the best offer they're likely to get. I think it's nuts - though unsurprising - that people are surfing the high of the last few days into believing we're a lock to have a great offense because we have a lot of great prospects. They don't all work out, and guys with huge K-rates are always a risk. So are guys with repeated injuries at a young age. We might very well be able to ride it out with all these guys and end up with a great hitting club, but if you can get a guy who's already a proven stud like Stanton without the cost being obscene, I don't know how you don't seriously consider it.

I think it makes perfect sense to consider trading hitters for hitters - once the euphoria wears off you understand that as talented as our youngsters are most of them will struggle for a while, and some of them won't make it, and having an established hitter or two in the everyday lineup would be huge. It doesn't have to be Stanton - one could argue it makes more sense to trade for a guy who does some of the things our best prospects don't do very well - but Stanton is by far the best hitter who might theoretically be available. The thing is, the Cubs don't need to trade for Stanton, so there's no need to get robbed here. Start a package around Castro and Almora, but leave Soler, Bryant, Baez and Russell out of it. Maybe something can work, maybe not, but there's sure no harm in finding out.

1.545 is the SLG. The line is .636-667-1545-2212. Sustainable.

1.545 There's no way that could be right after 2 HR today. Is there another league Soler can be bumped up to if necessary?

I'm confused. I thought it was a done deal Ricketts was going to spring for a FA #1 starter both this offseason and next?

This should give encouragement to the 90% of the Cubs blogosphere that's angling to get hired.

Given that Soler is going to be in Chicago very soon, it was a tiny bit worrisome to see him scuffling. Not a bad breakout though. Bryant and Soler, 12 PAs, on base 12 times, wow.

He seems to be getting his second wind. The HR cleared the light tower in RF that's what they call a towering shot. There was apparently a flaw developing in his swing (dragging the back foot forward) that the coaches picked up on and corrected just at the time his turnaround started. I like that - clearly, the kid is smart and coachable.

Falling back on mockery is certainly easier than answering, isn't it? Fine... Going into any negotiation, each party should have a clear understanding of the boundary of what they find an acceptable price for the product / service being offered. The fault of the front office is most certainly not that they have a number beyond which they will not exceed. That is actually essential to proper negotiating so that you do not let yourself get carried away because you "have to have it at all costs". The proper way to approach each FA is to look at the opportunity cost of doing and not doing an individual deal. Doing a deal has an opportunity cost of not being able to do other deals, whereas not doing a deal obviously has the cost of not retaining the services of that particular player. It comes down to having an overall strategy in place so that you can either do a deal that makes sense within the framework or have an alternative if you decide to walk away. What the Cubs have done is to put in place a plan in case they do not feel a player is worth the price being paid by another team. Up to now, that plan has been to sell the public on a rebuilding process. Going forward, the walk away plan includes giving time to tremendously talented but raw players. That means that we may not be willing to offer as much for a player like Castillo where we have other options in house, but the presence of those options at those positions means we may be willing to offer more for a player such as Lester. I would hope that we are approaching a position with the payroll and the budget that there is more flexibility to pursue high end free agents. Since the amount that makes sense for the team to offer depends not only on the player but the circumstances of the team. Those circumstances have changed, so I expect the amounts they are willing to offer to change accordingly. As I stated above, if they do not change this offseason I will be upset. But yes, it was much easier to give the flippant response than to type all that out. There - was that so hard? The issue for me isn't Castillo, but philosophy. And my point is, sooner or later you have to accept the realities of how the free agency process works or accept trying to win like the Royals or Pirates forever. That's not to say the Cubs won't - but until they do, I don't think any assumptions to the contrary are justified. If you don't plan to write off 2015 as another tank season, the process has to change this winter. I don't think that means going all-in on Lester, even if he goes to 7 years and 175 million. But maybe it's accepting that to get Kenta Maeda, you'll have to pay more than you think he should get. The problem is the FA market for OF is, as we know, terrible. So does that mean radically overpaying for a mediocre player? Trading blue chippers for a better one? In that context maybe 12 million for Castillo doesn't sound so bad.

Falling back on mockery is certainly easier than answering, isn't it?