dew1679666265
-
Posts
20,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by dew1679666265
-
Pretty sure that was argued about Dempster this past offseason too. Good hitting catchers are a rarity and that's what Geo is when he's playing well. I have little doubt the return would have been considerably higher if he could have had a good rebound in the first half of 2013.
-
You're kidding right? With this front office, I'm not ruling any kind of swindling out.
-
Most did it seems. I see it as a waste of an asset - trading him now is fine, but non-tendering would have been really pointless. And the reason I'd have kept him is because there's very minimal risk involved, but the potential for a lot of reward with this FO's negotiating ability. If we held onto Geo and he flopped again in 2013, then we missed out on an ok bullpen arm. If we held onto Geo and he had a hot first half, the Theo regime probably gets a fantastic return for him. Kinda like the Z/Volstad trade - making the deal is fine, but I wouldn't be sad to hold out for more and end up missing out on Volstad.
-
If Castillo were likely to be a really good starting catcher that would concern me, but there's not much to indicate that he is. I've never quite gotten the Castillo love - he looks like a nice backup or ok starter, but that's not the type of player you worry about blocking.
-
There's no doubt Brigham is the best the FO could've done right now, I'm not questioning that. I just wonder if we had kept Geo, tendered him this offseason, and then tried again next year if we could have gotten more if he had a rebound year.
-
Yeah, even if you don't like Vizcaino that much because of injuries, you have to keep in mind it's Maholm and Reed we just gave up - getting anything of real value is a really good return. I still can't believe we got this kind of stud upside in the trade, TJS or not.
-
I should have read this thread first and then got into the Maholm/Reed trade thread because maybe my expectations got too high. I kinda wish we had held onto Geo and tried again at next year's deadline (wasn't a fan of non-tendering him). Nothing really wrong with the trade I guess, I just have a nagging feeling that there were ways we could have gotten more. Maybe it's my love of Geo, though.
-
Theo. Seriously though, each GM had a fantastic season and were generally even other than that one year. Hendry had a lot more to spend in a few years and Kenny had a little more to spend in a lot of years. Neither is a GM I want running the Cubs at this point and I don't see a huge difference between the two. Those are Kenny's faults too - his minor league system is horrid and he willingly took on Alex Rios' contract.
-
Soriano went from $9 mil in year one to $13, 16, and then 18 each year following. Pretty standard backloading, I think. I don't think averaging the differences (as benchwarmer did) is very accurate either, because it eliminates the fact that the White Sox did have a higher payroll than us 5 of the past 7 years. Even if Hendry had huge advantages in other seasons, that still doesn't change the fact that Kenny had advantages in most of the past 7 seasons - that's significant. And the backloading in the 2006 offseason wasn't that dramatic - I already addressed Soriano and Lilly jumped from 5 to 7 to 12. If you want extreme backloading, look at Cliff Lee going from $11 mil in 2011 to $21.5 mil in 2012. That's a far more dramatic jump than anything Hendry signed in his tenure.
-
LOL. I would like that. Take a pitcher off the market and eliminate any chance of Demp going to LA. He might be more likely to approve an Atlanta deal at that point and Atlanta might still do the Delgado deal.
-
I think it depends on a lot of variables, but basically with Garza I think serious contention is 2014 at the earliest and without him, 2015. I still think we can put together a team with a chance at contention by 2013 (without committing a ton of money), but I don't know if the Theo regime would be interested in that route. The Dempster trade could play a big part in this as well, I think. If we can still end up with Delgado, that could accelerate our potential for contending since that's a TOR arm we'd have and wouldn't have to go get. If we either keep him or just get scraps (relatively speaking) for him, then that's a gaping hole at the top of our rotation we have to figure out how to fill - and two if we trade Garza.
-
Wasn't he the lone voice warning that the Demp trade hadn't gone through yet and there could be a hangup? I don't give his opinions the first bit of stock, but he seems pretty decent (relatively speaking for this front office) at reporting actual news.
-
Name a GM who doesn't backload contracts. A really dumb one. True.
-
Name a GM who doesn't backload contracts.
-
Good point, that completely slipped my mind.
-
What are the chances the Sox make a qualifying offer on Liriano in the offseason? He's a guy I've been hoping we could grab in FA as an upside buy who could net us good prospects at the deadline next year, but I certainly wouldn't give any sort of a pick for him.
-
If you like losing games, sure. Exactly, because that is the only way to conceivably look at it. We'll be doing a lot more of it for the next year or two at least if we trade Garza, considering we don't have fallback options like Hamels and Greinke in FA and may not even have Anibal. If I'm trading Garza, I want 2 TOR potential, major league ready SPs or I keep and extend him. I don't see any way the former is happening unless a GM is really dumb, so I'm more than happy to do the latter.
-
I'd have to be blown away by an offer to trade Garza. I see him as, at worst, a 2.5-3 WAR pitcher and potentially better if a few flaws can be fixed (get down the ridiculously high 16% HR/FB ratio and/or find a way to improve his fielding). He's probably not consistently the 5+ WAR pitcher from 2011, but I think you're selling him short if you peg his upside as 2.5-3 WAR. I think he can settle into the 3.5-4.5 WAR range. Combine that with the increasing possibility that you get him at a decent value (high ERA, some injury issues so far) and I see him as having much more value on a team desperately in need of definite talent than turning him into a couple players who you hope become ... him, eventually.
-
If you like losing games, sure.
-
I know it's the minority view here, but I'm not the least bit disappointed that it appears Garza is staying. He's at worst a good pitcher (3.57 xFIP this year) and at best borderline elite (3.19 xFIP in 2011). This team needs talent at the major league level as badly as it does in the minors and maybe moreso. Any pitchers we would get in a Garza trade, we'd basically be hoping they'd turn into Garza eventually. Extend Garza, hope things fall into place to still net Delgado for Dempster, and then build your rotation around Garza/Delgado/Shark/Wood. Bring Soto back next year, hope Marmol continues to turn it around, and try to move the two of them for more young pitching at next year's deadline. In the meantime, fish around on the FA market for upside buys (Liriano, Edwin Jackson) and if they pitch well, there's more young pitching to add to the ranks.
-
It actually wouldn't shock me to see Sanchez extended by the Tigers. They're clearly in a "win now" mode and may want more than a rental for Turner. I've not heard anything so I may have no idea what I'm talking about, but I could see a scenario where none of Hamels/Sanchez/Greinke are available. Which is all the more reason to keep Garza and lock him up.
-
The funny thing is, for the people who want to stick it to Demp by benching him or moving him to the pen, the best way to stick it to him is probably to let him start the rest of the season, hope he posts good numbers, and then hit him with the qualifying offer. He'd probably be in line for one final big payday (3/36, maybe?), but I strongly doubt any team would actually give him that. So he'd be stuck pitching for the Cubs on a 1-year deal with basically no chance of getting a multi-year deal after 2013. The draft budget was the worst thing that could have happened to mid-level pitchers like Marcum, McCarthy, and Dempster. Teams will give up a first rounder and the budget that goes with it for an elite guy, but I have trouble seeing many, if any, teams do that for a non-elite guy.
-
It's possible a team might sign Dempster, but they're sacrificing so much (first round pick and the draft money that goes along with it, thus making it harder to sign later picks) that it's pretty unlikely. Dempster has been fairly consistent, but he's very old for a pitcher (36) and is having a career year - he'll likely be overpaid and in decline under a new contract.
-
If the Cubs make the qualifying offer to Demp and he rejects it, the Cubs get a draft pick if another team signs him. The host was probably assuming Demp would be signed after the qualifying offer was made, which is probably a fault assumption with the new CBA. Since teams who sign players who have the qualifying offer tag will now have to surrender their first round pick and lose the draft money that goes along with that pick, it's pretty unlikely a team would sign a non-elite, older player like Dempster. The likelihood is he'd languish on the FA market until he finally accepted the Cubs' offer.
-
Better.