dew1679666265

And none of them are as young or healthy as Jeff Baker.

That's exactly why I think we can manage with lesser offense at third if it means a huge improvement in the rotation. A Flaherty/Baker platoon isn't going to give us the .867 OPS Aramis did this year, but they should be able to stay well above the .701 OPS which is the midpoint line in team OPS at third. Couple that with Aramis' age, health, and steadily declining defense and as much as I like him, it simply doesn't seem prudent to bring him back at the cost of CJ Wilson.

Poor wording on my part. It'd be a downgrade from the rotation of Garza/Dempster/Wilson/Z/Wells that we could field if we didn't dump Z for next to nothing. I think the options behind Z are worse than the options behind Aramis, even with the potential for decline Z has. Yep, I meant right. Was typing that post too quickly apparently. I'm ok with Jackson being worse than Byrd if he is since it'll be his rookie year. The problem is throwing a Reed/Colvin platoon out there in right instead of Byrd - I'm very concerned about Reed's health out there and Colvin's general ability to hit.

The problem is, it's unlikely already that we'll compete next year if we keep the current team intact and add Fielder and Wilson. If you start downgrading CF, LF, and the rotation, it becomes even more unlikely to compete.

I'm thinking in terms of not giving up on next season. If you can trade Soriano and get any measure of salary relief, do it. However, trading Z and only getting minimal salary relief or trading Byrd at all is very counterproductive. If people hate the idea of a Flaherty/Baker platoon at third where offense across the league is almost non-existant, wait til they think about a Reed/Colvin platoon in right where offense actually exists. The backloading might work, only if payroll is bumped up a little. I think we have something in the area of $30-40 million coming off the books after arbitration this offseason (largely depending on how Pena's extra $5 mil is counted), so to bring back Aramis and add both Fielder and Wilson you'd probably have to do something like this: Aramis: 2 years - 8/17 (25 mil total) Fielder: 8 years - 18/22/23/24/25/28/30/30 (200 mil total) Wilson: 5 years - 10/18/22/25/25 (100 mil total) That's adding $36 mil next year, which would fall inside of that range that I've seen estimated to this point. You'd have to fill literally everything else internally and might have to bump payroll up a bit, but it might be doable. If there is a way to have all three on the team next year, I'm all for that. I'm just uncomfortable assuming a bump in payroll when Ricketts may not authorize one. That's why I've been assuming we can only have 2 of the 3 on the team.

If by giving Aramis $16 million you can't afford that elite talent, then yes it certainly does decrease your odds of acquiring those players. I'm working under the assumption that the Cubs don't raise payroll this year. If that's the case, they cannot afford Aramis, Wilson, and Fielder. Therefore, if you bring Aramis back, you cannot sign one of Fielder/Wilson.

You don't think a Flaherty/Baker platoon could surpass a .701 OPS? That's not my ideal choice certainly, but if that's what it takes to net elite talent at first and in the rotation in the primes of their careers, then I'll take it. There are other cheap options we could look into - Mark Reynolds comes to mind, though he's very flawed - but those two are in-house options who would likely produce better than league average in a platoon role.

There's a very real chance it wouldn't be a gaping hole, though. With Baker posting a .900 or so OPS vs lefties, Flaherty/LeMaheieu would have to be really bad to not be able to surpass the .701 OPS that is the median team OPS at third. Third base offense is, and has been, so bad that you don't need a juggernaut to get better than average production there. On the other hand, it's not very often that you find two elite talents in their primes sitting on the free agent market and you potentially have the cash for both.

I'd pursue Fielder and Wilson first because they only cost us money, however, it's not the end of the world if we miss out on one of them. At that point, turn to the trade market and see what you can get. His past two fully healthy seasons were 2008 and 2011 - his OPS dropped 30 points from the former to the latter and UZR/150 dropped considerably as well. However, he is still a productive player right now when healthy. But when a guy has been hurt for significant portions of 2 of the past 3 years and has a long history of injury issues (minor primarily, but still injuries) previously, expecting him to remain healthy for his age 34 and 35 seasons is a little like putting a wolf in with a sheep and expecting the wolf not to eat the sheep. It could happen, but it's not something I'd put money on.

It was just the easiest metric to show quickly. His WAR in 2010 was .3, his wRC+ was 91, his wOBA was .321, his OBP was .294, his K% was 17.8 (highest since his rookie year), and his BB% has been 6.7 and 6.8 the past two years - his lowest rates since 2003. His BABIP was just .245, but his LD% was a career low 15.8%. I understand he was hurt most of the year, but that's the entire point - he's going to be 34 years old next year and has had injury issues throughout his career. Banking on him playing 147 games without any type of injury is a risky proposition at this point after 2 of his past 3 years have been injury-ridden and he's historically been injury prone.

If Aramis were a sure thing to be healthy and productive, I might agree with you. But he's not, so even though he'll be easy to bring back, there's considerable doubt whether he will even be worth his contract (or even healthy/productive) next year. So with considerable risk involved in both scenarios, I prefer the greater risk with significantly greater payoff potential to the lower risk, but much lower payoff potential. Keep in mind as well, as TT has pointed out, if we go the Fielder/Wilson route and miss on one or both, it means we still have money available to pursue trade targets. If we re-sign Aramis immediately, it limits our options a bit if unexpected trade targets become available early in the FA process. The Fielder/Wilson route isn't both of those two or bust.

The best way to determine a decline is not to look at one year in a player's career - you need something to compare him to. Here's the comparison for Aramis: 2008: .898 OPS/149 games played 2009: .905 OPS/82 games played 2010: .745 OPS/124 games played 2011: .867 OPS/147 games played In 2 of the past 4 seasons he's missed significant portions of the year - 38 games in 2010 and half the year in 2009. For the first time since 2008 he was very healthy this year, and managed an OPS 30 points below his most previous fully healthy year. Defensively, UZR/150 has had him getting consistently worse every year since 2008 to the point that his UZR/150 this year was -10.0. I realize UZR isn't gospel, but it's something to consider. Aramis may come out and have another good year next year and be fully healthy, I'm not saying he's a definite to break down next year. However, there is a very real risk that he may repeat his 2010 season or even his 2009 season rather than 2011. That risk needs to be factored in when considering giving him big money and the fact that he's going to be older next season than he was any of the past 4 years (obviously), that risk only goes up.

A bidding war is different from a ridiculous contract offer. What I was talking about there was a team like the Nationals stepping in and throwing out a (for instance) 7/175 deal or something silly like that. The chances are low that those kinds of crazy deals would be offered to both Fielder and Wilson - and Pujols if he's a FA. I certainly think a bidding war is possible and likely, but I believe the Cubs have the resources to win a bidding war. Elite players take deferred money all the time. You might have to throw in perks like a NTC or other things to get them to take a greatly deferred contract, but the money's guaranteed one way or the other, so if a guy signs a $150 million contract, he's getting all of that money (save taxes) whether it's deferred or not. And lots of teams backload contracts. It's not something exclusive to the Cubs. It may not, but giving a Aramis at least a 1/$16 deal and at most a 3/$45 deal just isn't the answer. It's not going to make the team better, it's a move to simply tread water and try not to be any worse than this year while trying to add Prince Fielder. Aramis is not a long term answer and won't be a short term answer if he gets hurt again.

The Cubs have as much or more money (from the estimates I've seen) coming off the books than anybody else this offseason. If the Cubs are committed to bringing in at least one of those players, they should not be outbid for that player. Every one of them would have to be willing to take less money to go elsewhere and that's very unlikely. Or it would mean that teams threw out ridiculously high offers to every one of those players, which is also very unlikely. Keep in mind as well that the Cubs can heavily backload one of the deals if they pursue both Fielder and Wilson. They could set up, say, Wilson's contract so that he's only getting $10 million next year on a (for instance) 5/100 deal. If they're simply picking up Aramis' option, they obviously can't backload it. That gives them a bit more flexibility going the Fielder/Wilson route.

If the Cubs are committed to bringing in both players, the chances of them missing both are pretty much slim to none. They have a lot of money to spend, so adding one of Fielder/Wilson should be a near certainty. I'll admit it's far less likely they net both, but coming out of the offseason missing Aramis, Fielder, Pujols, and Wilson is extremely unlikely if they're committed to going after those players. And if they basically trade Aramis for any one of those players, they're in better shape long term than if they just stood pat with Aramis. Keep in mind that if you stand pat you face the very real risk that Aramis continues to decline. Is it really a smart idea to give a 3/45 deal to a 33 year old injury prone slugger? Especially one who posted a .745 OPS last year? You could just pick up his option and not give him a new deal, but there's still no certainty that he'll produce like a $14 million player next year. There's a ton of risk in both scenarios, but there's a ton of upside in the Fielder/Wilson route, while there is little in the Fielder/Aramis route.

Nobody is. I, and others, are arguing that the Cubs should pursue both of them and since the Cubs have as much or more money to spend than any other team, they have a chance to land both. It's a risk, but standing pat with the current team (or something close to it) isn't going make us any better next year or going forward. Attempting to go after Fielder/Pujols while keeping Aramis is not standing pat. The risk/reward favors it, IMO. If they whiff after letting Aramis walk they will almost surely be worse. You're definitely worse if you let Aramis walk and then whiff on either Fielder or Wilson. However, if you take the risk and it works, you have a chance to win next year and you have a really good core moving forward. If you keep Aramis and sign Fielder, you're better so long as a 33-34 year old Aramis can stay healthy and productive. He did this year, but he did not last year. If Aramis is hurt a large portion of next year (very real possibility) and ends up with another .745 OPS, then you're worse next year and you have less of a base from which to build for the future. Sometimes you have to take calculated risks in order to win and given the money the Cubs have available to them this offseason, this is the time to take a risk. If it doesn't work of course it hurts, but taking the safe route isn't a sure thing to be competitive or even that much better next year.

What Ramirez do we get next year? Do we get this year's Aramis who was mostly healthy and generally very productive, or do we get last year's Aramis who was bad for quite some time, hurt a lot, and only came on strong in the second half of the year? You're talking like Aramis is some sure thing to be healthy and productive next year when that's not the case at all. He'll turn 34 during the season and just last year he was worth .3 WAR. He posted a .745 OPS last year. Yes he was hurt, but that wasn't that much of an anomaly. With the Fielder/Wilson combo (should we get both), you have elite production and the certainty that comes with younger players. Best case scenario you get an .833 OPS from Pena and an .871 OPS from Aramis. But how likely is that scenario? In the Fielder/Wilson scenario (if we get both, obviously), you have a much greater likelihood of getting the .871-.958 OPS Prince has posted each of the past three years and the 2.97-3.35 ERA and 1.17-1.25 WHIP Wilson has posted his 2 full years starting. Plus, both of those players likely remain highly productive for at least 2-3 more years (less certainty with Wilson), whereas Aramis and Pena are likely declining by 2013, if not next year.

Nobody is. I, and others, are arguing that the Cubs should pursue both of them and since the Cubs have as much or more money to spend than any other team, they have a chance to land both. It's a risk, but standing pat with the current team (or something close to it) isn't going make us any better next year or going forward.

Nick Collins out for the year with a neck injury.

One part of me wants to see this happen, but the Titan fan in me doesn't want to see them assured of getting Peyton Manning part 2.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/cbsports-exqb-george-i-could-help-colts-20110919,0,48209.story The Colts signing Collins was funny, but probably the best move they could have made. The Colts replacing him with Jeff George would be fantastic and would basically guarantee them first dibs on Luck.

Yea, my concern is that Blount simply isn't worth Fitzgerald in that scenario. If Britt's production through two weeks is a sign that he's hitting his potential, then Fitzgerald becomes expendable. However, I keep thinking I could get better value for Fitz than Blount. I'm thinking about something like this: Moss/Fitz for McFadden/Tate And see if he bites. That leaves me with Johnson/Britt/Knox at WR/Flex and McFadden/Best as my starting RBs.

This isn't a sit/start question, but it's also not worthy of its own thread so I'll stick it here. I lost Jamal Charles for the year in one league, so that leaves my RB situation as: Jahvid Best, Dexter McCluster, Delone Carter, and Montario Hardesty. My receivers are Fitzgerald, Santana Moss, Steve Johnson, Kenny Britt, Johnny Knox, Roy Williams, and Michael Crabtree. It's a 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 WR/Flex, no PPR. Here's the trade I've been offered: Moss/Fitzgerald/Knox for Blount/Hightower/Tate I'm tempted to take that trade if he'll swap out Hightower for somebody. He also has Darren McFadden. Thoughts (besides that my RB situation is embarassingly bad)?

The Titans dumped gatorade on Munchak after beating the Ravens Sunday. The reasoning was that it was his first head coaching win, but it still seemed odd.

Another rumor that they're eyeballing Tech. Or maybe they prefer MU to WVU, which makes sense to me. To me too. I'd be thrilled if the SEC pulled Virginia Tech, but I just don't see that being realistic. If Tennessee keeps improving, I think you could see a Tennessee/Virginia Tech rivalry form pretty quickly.