dew1679666265

At least Izturis isn't an option for the Cubs anymore this offseason.....

We better be getting something good in return if we're trading Baker and replacing him with any name on that list. I'd take Baker and DeWitt over any of them (obviously, as I mentioned before, those names appear to be purely speculative).

The first two didn't strongly impact our chances of contending, I don't think. Stewart could be horrid, but could be pretty good too. DeJesus would actually be exactly the type of productive value player we'd need to offset bringing in impact FAs and paying them as such. The reason this team has basically no chance to contend next year and very little chance in 2013 is passing on Darvish and Pujols, and possibly Prince. This team needs impact players in order to be able to contend, and two of the three that would have fit this team are off the board and there's very realistic doubt that we'll be involved with the third.

Luckily the names mentioned appear to be purely speculative, but even then I don't understand the desire for a utility infielder. If they are interested in one, then why in the world did we let Flaherty and Gonzalez go for nothing?

It's the drop in the K rate and rise in the BB rate that concern me.

I don't dislike the deal, especially if the prospects are better than filler. I also am perfectly fine with trading Marshall. The only thing I question is how valuable Wood is.

True, and that makes me feel better. I guess I'm just hesitant to buy into a guy with marginal stuff maintaining a pretty good WAR.

I don't know that Wood is going to wash out. I just don't see much to reassure me that he won't. He doesn't do anything particularly well and I'm not confident at all that he's a sure thing (as you and Rob seem to be) to be an average to above average pitcher going forward. It is a similar feeling to Randy Wells. I'm not comparing the pitchers' ability, more the type of pitcher they are. You don't buy into Wells because he has mediocre stuff and shaky results - I see the same thing in Wood. If Wood were to come up through the minors like Wells did, I'd be fine with that. I'm not comfortable with the idea of trading Marshall for that.

Is that WAR likely to remain that decent if his K/9 stays that low and his BB/9 stays that high? I guess what I'm asking is whether there was luck involved in that 1.1 WAR he posted last year and is he a good bet to keep that WAR despite such mediocre numbers?

What if 2011, where Wood had a 4.06 FIP, is what he'll be doing forward? Then I'll be happy to be slotting him in the back of our rotation for a long time. He may. My issue with this trade is that Wood is, at best, a slightly better than mediocre guy who can give us a couple wins for little cost. At worst, we just gave away a very good trading chip for a soft tosser who will wash out in a year or two (that's ignoring the prospects, which would make or break this deal for me). I was simply countering Rob's apparent assumption that Wood will be valuable for us going forward, thus this is a good trade. There's plenty of reason to think we just wasted Marshall.

What if 2011 is closer to what Wood will do going forward rather than 2010? He had two very similar sample sizes and his K/9 dropped a full strikeout while his BB/9 rose more than 1 full walk. It's all well and good that the two combined average out to a solid pitcher, but what if 2010 was a fluke?

Cheap and short are relative terms when you're talking about a mediocre, old OF without power or that much patience who we have two better versions of currently on the roster (DeJesus, Byrd).

I had no interest in Crisp whatsoever before that rumor, it just made me want him even less.

Yes.

MLBTR The bolded makes me really not want Crisp.

Goold: "What do you make of these discussions?" Agent: "Why I could make a hat, or a brooch, a pterodactyl. . . ." Excellent reference.

At this point I think it's important to balance between a rebuilding mode and a contending mode. There's no way to put a competitive team on the field in 2012 at this point, but at the same time selling off all our good pieces and having to either rebuild for 3-4 years or go crazy signing FAs and making trades to be even remotely competitive in 2013 shouldn't be an option either. My plan would be to pursue Prince aggressively, do almost whatever it takes to sign Soler and Cespedes, and start/keep shopping guys like Soto, Marmol, and Marshall. I would prefer to keep Garza because I see him as being a very good asset beyond 2012, but if somebody absolutely blew me away with a deal then I'd consider it. I'd also stay away from guys like Edwin Jackson, Paul Maholm, Hiroki Kuroda, and others who will take multiple years to sign and are very unlikely to live up to the money we'd be paying them. At this point I think we have to conserve as much money as possible (without tearing apart the current team) to pursue whatever elite pitching is on the market next offseason. I'd also scour the lower levels of FA to find value pieces like W-Y Chen, Francis, Owings, Wood and Kazmir, that either can be long-term pieces or who could have a rebound half a season and then net a prospect of some type at the deadline. Basically, look to move out the guys who likely won't be part of the team beyond 2012 who could net a return of some significance and try to add guys who either are impact players (Prince) or could become impact players (Soler, Cespedes) and take some of the pressure off of us during the 2013 offseason.

Most people were assuming the bid would be higher, and they were barely right. Dice-K went for $51.something million and Darvish went for $51.something million. If Theo made a competitive bid (which we'll probably never find out) then I'm happy, I don't really care what that number actually is. Theo could have exceeded the amount he bid for Dice-K and still lost to Texas. Losing the bid for Darvish doesn't in and of itself mean the Boston guys were right and the Cubs aren't willing to spend money.

What if Theo went $50 million? We don't know that he didn't and that would contradict the "low ball" offer Cafardo reported.

I'm not sure about that. The Blue Jays could now turn their interest to Garza and some minor league guru types on here prefer the Jays' system to the Rangers' for the purposes of a Garza deal.

I agree.

My apologies. The humor I find in that name is a weakness of mine.

The rumors last night and today were that the Ham Fighters were expected to accept the highest bid tonight (Tuesday morning in Japan) and that winning team would be announced shortly thereafter. It sounds like the Ham Fighters will announce their acceptance of the winning bid themselves, and then MLB will announce which team made that bid (since the Fighters don't know the identity of the bids). What form that will appear in, I have no idea.

MLBTR

Or maybe, just maybe, the Cubs are acting like an organization that finally has a long-term plan. Giving a 6 year/$50 million contract (estimate) with a $60 million posting fee (estimate) to a 26 year old pitcher who is widely thought to have star potential is contrary to a long-term oriented plan? I can understand questioning how much success Darvish will have in the majors, but the simple act of signing him is not an indication of not having a long term plan.