dew1679666265

If we can turn a few of our decent assets into a potential impact player, I have no problem with giving a few of them up. Smoak has an excellent minor league track record, is still only 25, and fills a position of major need in the organization. I'd prefer Prince since we wouldn't have to give up assets to get him and he's more of a sure thing in the short term, but if we miss on him Smoak would be a cheap (in terms of money), long term alternative that would be better than getting an aging stopgap.

DeWitt and Coleman are the best players our system has to offer? I never threw out a proposal of any type, so I don't know why you're assuming I'd throw out a silly offer that clearly has no shot of being considered. We could easily toss out package of significant prospects for Smoak if necessary and I'd make just about anybody in the system available in trade, as well as Barney - who they may have interest in since Jack Z has been gung-ho over defense and hasn't cared about offense since he got to Seattle. I'd make Castro and BJax off limits, but I might consider (depending on Seattle's ability to come up with a great offer) some form of a Garza for Smoak+ deal. Don't hold me to the Garza idea, though. I could easily be talked out of it. I wouldn't hate a Barton acquisition, but he's been really mediocre in more than twice the PAs Smoak has had and he's a year older. Maybe Oakland has suppressed his power, but I have my doubts.

I'm not angry or anything that we might be going after Crisp, I just don't see a real benefit to it. Unless Theo/Hoyer just really don't like Brett Jackson, it would make far more sense to go with a Jackson/DeJesus/(Soriano/Byrd) OF if we trade Sori/Byrd rather than giving Crisp a few million to probably not be much, if any, better than BJax. Just seems like a really poor allocation of funds, especially if it happens later in the offseason when funds are tight already.

If this happens, then the Cubs need to get really serious about prying Justin Smoak away from Seattle.

Signing Crisp isn't a negative on its own. But when you consider that this team already has little to no power in the outfield, has only 1/3 of the starting OF get on base at a good clip (DeJesus), and already has Tony Campana to very cheaply fill the great defense/baserunner role and also has DeJesus to provide both decently, going after Crisp seems like a terrible allocation of funds - even if he signs cheaply. Also, that post was in reference to you apparently referring to Crisp as well-rounded, in the same arena as Lowell, Beltre, Gonzalez, etc. When your offensive output can be optimistically described as "Is it good? No. But it's not like it's bad either," then you're not a well-rounded player.

If he were pursuing guys with well-rounded skillsets like the guys you listed, that'd be fine. My concern is that he's targeting guys like Coco Crisp who don't have well-rounded skillsets. He can run the bases well and plays good defense, but isn't very good at getting on base and barely tops a .400 career slugging. His career walk rate is 7.6% and the two highest of his career have come in seasons where he played fewer than 100 games. Add onto that he's 32 years old and has played more than 130 games in a season 4 times and I'm not seeing anything close to well-rounded for Crisp. You can make that argument with DeJesus and you'd be right. But not Crisp. As an aside, the moves Theo has been making to this point do seem similar to what Zduriencik did when he got to Seattle. Jack Z focused almost entirely on defense and baserunning, while completely ignoring offense (brought in guys like Betancourt, Jack Wilson, and others) and it led to Seattle being absolutely horrid his entire tenure so far. If that's the new market inefficiency that has been identified by SABR-savvy GMs and is the plan that Theo is bringing to Chicago, I really hope Theo does a better job of it than Jack Z has done in Seattle.

To go along with that post, I'm not necessarily arguing that there's no way we're feigning interest in those guys. I'm simply arguing that logic isn't on the side of arguing that we are feigning interest in those guys since there's really no tangible benefit to doing it. Maybe Theo has crazy financial restraints, knows we're going to suck until at least 2015, and is bored so he's messing with people's heads. I just don't think that scenario is at all likely.

What rivals? If the offer to Pujols is true, it didn't drive up the price on anybody, much less the Cardinals. The Brewers never had a shot at Prince whether we feigned/had interest or not. The Blue Jays, Rangers, Angels, etc., aren't rivals. Like I said before, Garza isn't a guy we have to get rid of tomorrow if we plan on sucking the next couple of years. Whatever our plans are going forward, we have time on our side and can wait teams out. We don't need to pretend to be trying to contend to get the most out of Garza. It's purple shirt guy. I don't remember why he was sneaking around in gorilla suits, but lying to purple shirt guy was an attempt for some privacy because he didn't want the fact that he was interviewing with the Cubs to become public knowledge/add fuel to the fire. I don't see how that situation is at all similar to feigning interest in players we have no interest in.

That's crazytalk. If that's the case, we're lucky to be in a league with so many dumb GMs. And we should also keep him if that's the case.

The only hard fact that we have to this point is that the Cubs were unable to sign Pujols. A report that we made a substandard offer isn't a hard fact, it's a report. For all we know, the Cubs may have offered 10/270 thinking that would be enough and the Angles barely won the bidding. With the very, very limited amount of actual, real information we have that we can count on, almost any hypothesis could seem somewhat reasonable. My reason for jumping into this, however, was to ask why you thought Theo would float out rumors that we were interested in Pujols/Prince/Darvish when we really weren't.

Does it? Even if we plan to suck next year and the next few years after that, we shouldn't feel pressured to trade Garza right now. I'm as disenchanted with the offseason to this point as you are, but we've been heavily rumored for 3 major players - Pujols, Prince, and Darvish. We've missed on only one of them so far and the other two haven't signed yet. If the rumors are right about our offer to Pujols, I don't think we made a serious bid for him. But, as others have pointed out, Darvish and Prince fit the blueprint laid out by Theo/Hoyer more than Pujols, so they could be the ones we were serious about from the start. If we miss on all three, I'll probably agree with you. Right now, though, I have to think we're serious players for Darvish and Prince.

The problem is, if we make no attempt to improve the team substantially this year and just sign pointless filler, it makes it much, much harder to put anything more than a mediocre team on the field for 2013. Sure, multiple elite pitchers set to hit the market next year actually could and we might be able to sign two of them, and we might be able to find a better than mediocre first base option next offseason, and might be able to acquire said player at a reasonable cost, but all of that happening just right is really slim. Thus, if we put off making the team noticeably better this year, we delay the point in time that we actually become a good team again by at least a season and maybe more if things don't break just right for us in FA/trades. That could be Theo/Hoyer's plan, but I would hope they were smarter than that.

What's the benefit to Theo and the Cubs to feign interest in Pujols, Prince, and Darvish if we have none? It's not like the Marlins, where fans need to be appeased - Cub fans by and large are going to have faith in Theo's plan, at least early on, no matter what that plan is. The reported interest in Pujols did seem token, as you stated, and that likely wouldn't have seriously driven up his cost to the Cardinals. The Brewers had no shot at Prince whether we feigned interest or not. The Blue Jays and Rangers were the perceived leaders for Darvish from the start and there's no real benefit to the Cubs if they pay a little more for him - especially if the plan is to suck for the next few years. I just don't see a benefit to us by feigning interest.

Then we also need to start accepting the fact that we aren't going to be good for the next 4-5 years if that's the case. And we'll waste millions on guys like DeJesus and Crisp in the process. You may be right, but I've got to believe Theo/Hoyer is smarter than that. Even if they were willing to throw away the next few years for no good reason, they really ought to target guys more like Stewart than Crisp - guys who might have actual upside.

Don't we already have Sam Fuld v2? Yeah, Campana is a far better option for that role than Crisp and he's younger and cheaper. I really don't understand why the Cubs would have any interest in him whatsoever.

If we're going to trade Garza, there has to be plenty of high upside in the deal. I like Alonzo and his upside, but with Leake and Heisey there's really not much, if any, upside. If you went with Alonzo/Leake/two high upside, near major league ready prospects then I might get behind the trade. Who/what that would be in the Reds' system, however, I have no idea.

I can see that.

Hadn't considered the Marquis comparison - it's a pretty good comp. I wouldn't be angry if the Cubs signed him or anything (unless he cost us actual money), but it seems like I've seen him mentioned more often than a mediocre innings-eater should be. Maybe I'm overblowing it, though.

I guess even if Saunders came cheap I see a lot of better options out there who can be had cheaply and are young enough to potentially get better. I see Saunders' name pop up on here often enough that I keep thinking I'm missing something, though. But I just keep seeing an old pitcher who doesn't walk guys or strike anybody out and has been pretty unproductive.

This list is part of my concern over passing on Prince. Smoak may well not be available, there's no reason why Blanks and Davis would be available for anything reasonable, Barton may well not slug over .400, Trumbo is really bad, Sanchez may not be available and is 30 years old, and Snider has a .307 career OBP. Will Logan Morrison hit enough to be a first baseman? I hadn't really seriously considered him for first, but if the thought is he'll hit enough to play first then that'd be a good move. Morales I like if healthy, but that's a big if. Reynolds interested me as a buy-low option at third, but I seriously doubt he hits enough to be passable at first. Lind is another guy (as you pointed out) with an awful OBP, though that could be fixed maybe. These guys would be ok on 1 year contracts I guess, but I'm not convinced they'll settle for that and I think the offers will be greater. I have no interest in any of them on more than one year deals. Basically I'm seeing 3 options for the Cubs if they pass on Prince: 1) Overpay severely in prospects for a possible long term option (Smoak, Davis, Blanks) 2) Go with a one-dimensional option offensively in Barton (OBP only) or Snider/Lind (SLG only) and hope that elite offensive players without flaws (if they exist) come available that we're willing to sign in the near future 3) Grab an old placeholder and hope for a breakout year each season - a very small market-esque strategy

What's the interest in Joe Saunders about? I've seen his name pop up on multiple occasions and never understood why anybody would be interested in him. He'll be 31 next year, has had two seasons with an ERA under 4.00, and never had an xFIP under 4.38 in a full season. He doesn't walk a lot of batters (2.87 BB/9), but he also doesn't strike anybody out (5.02 K/9). He is a lefty though, so I guess there's that. Can't say I have any interest in him or Owings.

Here's a question and one I ask honestly and not just to counter anti-Prince sentiments: After passing on Dunn last year and Pujols and Prince this year, what good (key word) first base options are left out there for us to pursue? I've seen a bunch of options thrown around, but most all of them range from dreadful (LaHair) to barely mediocre (Daric Barton). The only options I can think of that I'd describe as better than mediocre are Morales (if healthy) and Smoak (only if Prince signs with the Mariners). Bringing Pena back wouldn't be an awful move, if he wasn't looking for a multi-year deal. I have no interest in giving up any talent for Loney and I don't think Trumbo will be able to avoid making outs. Barton would be a passable option if we plan on taking the rebuilding for 3-5 years route, but a guy who probably won't slug over .400 isn't an option for a team hoping to contend. Kotchman is an older, more expensive Barton (and probably not as good), and LaHair as the starting first baseman would send TT over the edge. In the minors we have no ML-quality first basemen until you get to Vogelbach. Am I missing any options or underrating a guy like Barton? We seem to be in a position of two extremes here - either we get very good production out of first, but pay too much for it or we get barely better than replacement level production out of first.

I do agree with WSR that in signing Prince you're not signing the complete elite player you'd like to be. That's why I wanted Pujols more - he's a much more complete player (offense, defense, baserunning all included) than Prince. However, this team has its infield defense pretty well settled at its currently filled positions (Stewart is above average, Starlin will get better, and Barney is really good), but it needs elite offense. Prince will provide elite offense unlike any other free agent currently out there and that's why the Cubs should pursue him.

Are there really that many young players on the Reds that can get significantly better? There could be a few marginal improvements (which would still make them a better team), but Votto, Cueto, Leake, Bruce have all been about as good as they're going to get at this point - with maybe Cueto getting a little better. Alonso is stuck on the bench until Votto is traded, Dusty probably broke Volquez, Bailey's an enigma (hard to tell what he'll do going forward), and I'm not much of a Drew Stubbs fan. They could get a big boost from moving Chapman to the rotation, but I'm not sure Dusty's open to doing that and even if he does, there's the concern over how big a jump he can make in innings. Travis Wood could also help them out if he gets better. We keep hearing about how the Reds are going to be really good when all these great young players develop, but that's been the refrain for about 5 years now. This could be the year they do it, but I still don't see them being a good bet to be better than mid-80s in wins and I think that's the area the Cubs can reach if they don't go with the 3-5 year rebuilding plan. As for the pursuit of Prince/Darvish, I think the weak division should make the Cubs a bit more aggressive in pursuing both. They shouldn't dole out silly contracts, but I think they should be a bit more open to overpaying a little than they may have been before. For instance, if Theo/Hoyer feel comfortable going 5 years with Prince, but it'll take 6 to get him to sign, I think the weak division and the very real shot to win now should get them to do that. But if Theo/Hoyer feel comfortable going 5 years and Prince is looking for 8, I don't think you do that. Same with Darvish. I would go a little past my comfort level because of the weak division, but I wouldn't give out silly contracts.

Well yeah, we've gotten much worse so far this offseason, but I thought your comment about the Reds being "quite a bit better" than the Cubs last season was pertaining to last season only. Going into next season, the Cubs have much more upside to get better. We have the payroll to really improve ourselves with signings such as Prince, Darvish, etc. The Reds don't. As long as management doesn't buy into the idea that we need a 3-5 year rebuilding process, there's no reason the Reds should be much, if any, better than us next year.