buckeye27

STL w/out albert is still competitive. CLE w/out lebron, we all know where that went.

Albert is still, and will be a beast for years to come. His "off" year was still pretty productive, and his problems early on stemmed from him chasing bad pitches, getting behind in the count and then reaching for "junk". He'd make contact with a bad pitch, but obviously couldnt get good wood on it, and the result were groundouts or double plays. Following him for 11 years, I've seen him go into this, just not as long as he did this year. Obviously, he turned it around and still had a productive season, including taking us to the WS and winning it. Wherever he lands, people will not be disappointed. He is truely a once in a lifetime player, but you dont need me to tell you that.

I don't really see why the cubs would consider dealing garza unless the package was flat out incredible. This past year, garza made 5.9m dollars. Garza in almost any estimation is a top of the line starter. He is ace type material. In comparison, the pirates are "close" to a deal with Clint Barmes. 2 years, 11m. Garza is a guy you can build a rotation around, and if the goal is to be competitive, trading off the best starter on the staff isn't the best idea. Unless there's something that im completely missing about him, he's a keeper. I'd love to have this guy on my team.

How long a track record do you require before you consider a guy a star player? I could understand if he had one random breakout year, but he's had two really good seasons and has shown considerable improvements in his peripherals from year one to year two in one of the best hitters parks in the majors. And again, nobody's talking CC/Lee/Halladay money here. A 5/90 deal would be $30 million fewer total dollars than Lee got for having a resume that isn't much better, if any. i believe he was looking for a 6/120. thats probably too much for wilson. but who knows.

Hopefully the victims will be willing to testify and offset any decrease in his credibility. I keep hearing people in the sports media comparing McQuery to Mark Furman and saying he's going to blow the case by losing credibility. From what we are hearing, it seems to me like the Sandusky case is a slam dunk. All the victims, the Costas interview, the 1998 account, and even McQuery's account makes this case a given. Even if he did lie about going to the police, he clearly has a motive to lie and say he told the police. He has no motive to lie and say he saw Sandusky raping a boy. Does anyone with an IQ above that of an OJ Simpson juror honestly think that McQuery is making this stuff up just because they can't find a stupid police report? I think the McQuery stuff has a bigger implication on the inevitable civil suits, because it will speak to how bad the university cover-up was. Because from what we're hearing about the cover up, it looks like the courts and the victims lawyers are going to engage in some serious "horseplay" with the Penn State. They are going to obviously going to try to discredit McQuery. I wonder if McQuery has positive ID on the kid, as Sandusky's attorney has said that the kid will deny what McQuery has said. If it happened almost 10 years ago, you have to wonder how familiar on a name basis McQuery was at the time with the various kids from Second Mile. But, even if McQuery doesn't work out, you'd think between the 8 original victims, as well as the additional ones that may come forward, would certainly provide enough evidence.

As long as boise state keeps losing on missed FGs, im happy with whatever system they throw out there.

I am by no means saying that wilson is a bad pitcher. He will make one of the best #2's on a staff somewhere. Watching him pitch, he does not seem to have shut down stuff. He seems to have control problems at times. And is apparently looking for 120m or something crazy along those lines. His numbers have been very very good the past 2 years, regular season numbers. I think you do have to consider that he does play in the AL west, where two of the worst offenses in the AL reside. The angels which would complete the division aren't much better offensively.

In 2 years in the post season, wilson has a 1-5 record with a 4.82 era. While I may overrate carpenter because of a personal bias towards him, it does stand he is 9-2 lifetime in the playoffs with a 3.05 era. Obviously he is older, aging and who knows what he has left in the tank, Carp that is. But when I'm looking for a true number one, no matter what team I am a fan of, I'm thinking longterm, I'm thinking playoffs. And while people may write off Wilsons playoff record, it still stands there as 1-5 with a close to 5.00 era. If im looking at wilson from the standpoint of a team that is making the playoffs, then you'd be crazy to to discount his post season struggles and ignore them when signing him. But I think that when viewing wilson, it really depends what you're looking for when considering signing him, are you looking for that shutdown ace? I just dont see him as that.

his numbers the past 2 years i bet are better than cliff lee's numbers. do you think anyone would rather have wilson over lee? while numbers surely mean a lot and absolutely are a huge negotiating point, its his terrible post season that has people devaluing him. in my mind, a number one is that guy who stops losing streaks, who takes the ball every 5th day and wins most of his outings, but above all, when absolutely needed in the post season, elevates his play in big games. he'd be our #3. he'd be philly's #4. while on some dumpy team like the pirates, he'd certainly be a #1, but i sure as heck wouldnt bet my playoff series on him starting twice.

He's been an elite starter for two seasons now and has just 700 MLB innings on his arm. He's as good a risk as you're going to find on the pitching FA market. He's been very good, but I wouldn't pay him like an ace. I'd give him five years, but not for more than 15-16MM per year. CJ wilson is not a #1. simple as that. and he shouldnt be paid like one.

Who said anything about dollars being close? Nobody ever said Pujols would leave St. Louis over a negligible amount of money. That's a COMPLETELY different argument. And that brings me back to Albert. The Cardinals offered him a very substansial package to stay there. There is no way the Cubs are going to blow the offer the Cardinals made him out of the water. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. If the Cubs offered him 210M over the course of the contract to the Cards 200M, he'd most likely stay in STL and it has everything to do with loyalty to an organization. If the Cubs offered 250M, that is different. But again, that is also not happening. Being from St. Louis, I would think it would take a lot to get albert out of here, it would have to be the perfect situation and a crazy contract. His foundations, restaurant, fans, statue, friends, roots are all here in st. louis, and have been for 11 years. As a diehard st. louis fan, I obviously don't speak for every cards fan, but I can tell you this, if we were to sign him for 9 years, I have zero expectations of him. I am blessed to have been able to watch this guy hit for 11 years, and if he hit 280 with 25 hrs and 80 rbs the rest of his career, with a massive 8-10 year contract, I would personally have no problem with it. He owes nothing to the fans nor the organization. If he goes to a non playoff team, he is expected to take them to the playoffs. If he goes to a playoff team, hes expected to win the WS. If he stays in st.louis, he will be revered as a legend, up there with Musial. I am not knocking the cubs nor any other organization, but the level of comfort he has here with everything around him, would make it very tough to pull him out of here unless it was a crazy offer. Ontop of it all, he has won two world series here and knows we are commited to be competitive. I do hope the cubs make a FA splash, but I personally feel it wont be with Albert. I am supposed to hate the cubs, but I could not personally imagine a wilder scene than if the cubs win a WS.

z's trade value currently is nonexistant. the best the cubs can do, is unload him and his contract. if they offered him and got back a case of ballpark brawts, they'd take it just to get rid of the contract. i wouldnt expect anything substantial in return, as this is obviously a huge salary dump

Better defense. No annoying pause in his delivery. That's all I've got. i actaully have to disagree about him being doug davis. davis in his entire career, won double digits only 5 times. buhrle has 11 straight double digit win seasons and in EACH of those years, he finished with 200+ innings. out of those 11, 8 of them he had a sub 4 ERA. buhrle has never had an amazing whip, nor strikeout totals, but if you want to bet on a guy to win double digits in a year, he's not a bad bet. i severely underrated this guy. but i think that goes with the job he does, its not flashy, but he has proven without electric stuff, that he can get batters out and he can win games. i would bet that buhrle continues to win 10+ games for at least a few more seasons, then who knows.

as for the marlins, i see a lot of this a PR stunt. it may or may not be true and this is all pure speculation on my part, but with the crap attendance they've had, they need to stir the pot. making a FA a "substantial" offer, doesn't mean jack, a "competitive" offer, thats another story. would you, or I, or anyone, consider say, a 7 year 133m contract substantial? yes. 133m is substantial money. is it competitive? heck no, not for what say, albert or prince are looking for. imagine this, imagine living in florida...the news is probably how they made offers to 3 FA's. are they going to get all 3? most likely not. almost certainly not. but its still news and its still talked about. the team most talked about in baseball right now, is probably THE miami marlins, and they have yet to ink a big player. but everyones talking about them. get some excitement down there, drop a new name, logo, and awful stadium, and its all still news. if i were a GM, and i thought i had 1% chance to sign albert or prince, i'd fly them in and take the chance. you don't know till you try. do i think either of the first basemen are going to down there? heck no. considering they draw 14,000 or so per game, they need to drum up interest in an area thats never proven to be a baseball hotbed in terms of fans attendance. give the fans hope, show them that they are trying, or at least give them the illusion that they are trying.

I'm guessing they're finally going to give Brown his chance in LF. I don't think they are going to have too much problem replacing the guys they lost in 2011, but it's the guys they are going to lose in 2012/2013 that are going to be an issue. They aren't going to be able to keep all of them, and they don't have many replacements for them waiting. i agree that brown should be getting his chance. though im not quite sure that this signing makes a whole lot of sense. the phils are lacking offense, consistant offense. and obviously theres a window there as some of the guys are getting older. i'd have thought they'd look to upgrade the offense more than spend a ton on a closer. when we faced them in the playoffs this past year, i can honestly say that noone in their lineup scared me. i felt that rollins was hot and was getting on a lot, but after rollins, you can get those guys out. the bottom of their lineup was just abysmal. so im not sure what their plan is, but whatever it is they are good at hiding it.

I agree he's nothing close to a real #1, but he's still a pretty good pitcher. Much better than what you're projecting. actually going off his numbers, he is more of a 2/3. he's not a #1, and certainly not a 4. he's about as solid as it gets and he'll be a pretty good 4-5 year contract. you can count on his 200+ IP and close to 15 wins a season.

hosmer, moustakas, meyers and lamb are all very highly ranked royals prospects. hosmer is untouchable, as i'd think moustakas is also. however, from what i had read over the past few months, with butler and hosmer both basically playing first, i'd think billy butler would be the trade chip that the royals would be dangling. there was talk that butler would be gone sooner or later because of the necessity to play hosmer at first, which is butlers natural position.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player? *Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015. So just because we don't sign Pujols or Fielder, we're throwing away the next several years? I think all he's trying to convey is that, given the Cubs' blueprint under Epstein, we should be in a much better position to field a consistently competitive team in a few years, whether that's through our own homegrown players or players obtained from other teams in exchange for our prospects. Once we're in that position, it would really suck to be constrained from acquiring star players because we have a 36 year-old Pujols tying up $25-30 million in payroll and producing at a rate that is replaceable at a much lower cost. Under that theory, it might be better to maintain as much flexibility as possible so that we can address certain needs when we're in a better position to compete long-term. I don't necessarily agree that we should avoid handing out long-term contracts (Fielder would be a good fit), but I'm surprised at how quickly people dismiss Pujols' down year, given the huge drop in walks. His age has always been a question mark and, coupled with some serious injuries throughout his career, I wouldn't blame Epstein for passing on him. for the cubs, prince makes sense. i doubt albert is going to be playing anywhere next year but stlouis. and if he is true about what he says, you can rule the cubs out due to the fact that they have a lot of work to be done. if the cubs were just one guy away (albert) from winning the ws, i could see him going there if the price was right, but between not liking the stadium, and the fact the cubs are way off of what he is probably looking for, he wont go there. i also doubt theo is even going to pursue him. fielder on the other hand, makes a lot more sense due to his age and the fact that when the cub prospects are hitting the majors, prince would be 30-31ish and still have prime years of production left.

I would not be OK with a 10/300 deal for Pujols. Way too much, IMO 10/300 is just insane. i'd pay a 25 year old guy 10/300 if he was a once in a generation player. but not a 31 year old. then again, i bet albert ends up with a 8/9x25m+.

i think sanfran needs outfielders. badly. give them a big power bat for the OF and they'd be happy. i think i read somewhere they are looking to replace the entire OF.

if i were a bigtime cubs fan, for the longevity of being competetive, im not sure i'd want albert or fielder. possibly fielder, but not albert. and i'd certainly put a priority on pitching. albert and prince will get long contracts for big money. when it comes to albert, as a st.louis fan, i can probably say that we'd be the best option for an 8-9 year contract. i highly doubt albert is going to be nearly as productive when hes 38/39/40, and he'll be making huge money. but, i can also say, even making 25m+ a year, and putting up a .280/30/90 line, people in st.louis would not be nearly as mad at the end years of the contract than in other cities. you all would certainly be happy with alberts 1st, 2nd, 3rd years in his contract, but as he hits his mid 30's, im not sure it would be such a wise investment. look at the yankees, they will be paying afraud 32m at age 42...that is the most untradable contract in baseball. and considering vernon wells has i believe 3 years and something like 75m+ left on his, thats saying a lot. there are options out there for you guys at first i'd think, via trade or cheaper alternatives. i think theo is probably going to do this right, stock your farm system with talent and then fill in the holes as you guys go with FA's. i do not believe that he is looking for a one year turn around. prince would make the most sense if you were to get one of the big ticket 1st basemen. as for garza, i'd kill to have him on my team, and i believe he's one of the guys in the majors on your roster that you absolutely want to keep. he is affordable for what he brings to the table, thats for sure. we're stuck with 2 middle of the road starters (lohse and westbrook) that make a combined 20m. garza made a whopping 5.9m last year i believe, which for someone putting his numbers up, is a complete bargin. you can build the rest of the staff around that guy and pencil him in as your solid #2. without a doubt.

Probably Wilson as I see him as a bit better, but I'd have no problem with either. It's not a useful question, though, because you don't give out elite starter money just because you think a guy is going to pitch great in one game in a hypothetical playoff game. You give out elite starter money because you believe a guy can pitch at an extremely high level over the course of an entire 162 game season and Wilson has done that twice. He's not had any problems through two seasons. A 5.2 average WAR his only two years starting and showing improvements in K/9, BB/9 and K/BB from year one to year two. That's not a pitcher who I'm afraid is going to break down shortly, especially since he's only logged around 700 ML innings on his arm to this point. He's going to cost a ton, but if he can keep up his 5.2 WAR average going forward, he'll be well worth the cost. My guess is probably in the 5/85-95 range, which would be an AAV of around $17-19 million. Teams pursuing Wilson will be aided by the presence of Darvish on the market, the rumors that the Red Sox won't be interested, and the possibility that the Yankees chose to go lower tier to find their starter (Buehrle? Oswalt? Jackson?) since they just gave CC a hefty raise. this obviously isnt an end all. but coming from a texas fan, if you read the bottom of this article, you'll see this guys opinion of wilson. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/rangers-not-over-series-loss-to-cards/article_3eeba6f9-182e-5b48-a314-1c7fd6ab8904.html this is from a texas writer. and obviously, its only an opinion.

He's not topped 225 innings yet, but he pitched 223 last year and in the 175-223 range he posted monthly ERAs of 2.87 and 1.21 and a K:BB ratio of 69:21. In 2010, he struggled a bit in his 175-250 range: 5.85 ERA and 30:16 K:BB. For comparison, Halladay posted ERAs of 2.62 and 1.70 with a K:BB ratio of 68:16 in the same range. Sabathia had ERAs of 4.68 and 3.08 with a K:BB ratio of 74:16. Verlander was at 3.12 and 2.55 and a K:BB ratio of 72:21. All have better K:BB ratios in that period, but Wilson's ERA (not a good measure, but nothing is when you look at a 60 inning range) is comparable to them all and better than some. My focus on determining an "ace" of a staff is how well the pitcher does over the course of the season, not just in a select 60-inning range. Wilson was the 9th best pitcher according to WAR and has less mileage on his arm than almost anybody around him on that list. He's always been a good pitcher even as a reliever, but it's become pretty clear he's an elite arm as a starter. Then you're selling him pretty short. Where would you have him on your list of best pitchers? well, let me ask you this. from an unbiased standpoint, our teams are in the playoffs. we have the choice of starting garza or wilson. who do you go to? i'd go garza. as for my best starting pitchers, thats a darn good question. you'd have to have verlander, kershaw, halladay, wainwright, felix, lee, sabathia on there. i'd think that cain and lincecum would have to be on there somewhere. probably jared weaver. he probably does fall in the 15-20 range. wilson that is. its very possible he may turn out some more great seasons. i think its tough to have an arm adjust from bullpen to the longevity of an actual season and starting pitching. from watching him pitch in the WS, it seemed that his confidence wasnt where you'd want it from an ace. he seemed to have control issues. obviously its only a small sampling, but it is on the biggest stage. if we had the option to add him, by all means i'd do it, but i think my issue is more of what he's going to cost in a year where theres no SP out there to sign, vs. a year when he's say, the 3rd best starter.

as for garza, you have a guy who has proven he can pitch well in the post season, has always had a sub 4 era (even with 3 years in TB facing those AL east lineups). i just cant really see you guys trading him for anything thats truely going to benefit the club more so than keeping him. garza is easily a top of the rotation guy with a proven track record.

I'm not sure I'd label a guy that is 9th in WAR over the last two years as merely "serviceable" or as "he's no ace". Particularly when he's ahead of quite a few people that would be labeled as aces. i think it matters what you do when it comes down to it. wilson had been, up until 2 years ago, a RP. i think his post season has lowered his price and value a bit. just think how many guys come out of the gates and after say, 125-140+ innings are amazing. wilson certainly can pitch, but can he do it for 225+ innings each year is the question, and how effective will he be in the 175-250 inning range if it comes down to it. when i think of ace material, thats halladay, wainwright, verlander, sabathia, lee, hernandez, kershaw etc. i will be 100% honest, and obviously this is just from a fans standpoint, but when we faced wilson in the WS, i wasn't sitting there like "oh no, we're introuble, we're facing cj wilson...". he doesnt really strike fear into you like the top of the line guys do. as for servicable, thats a bit low balling him. he's certainly a darn good pitcher, but i wouldnt call him one of the 10 or 15 best starters in baseball.