dew1679666265

And they gave up a better asset than I felt they should and that precedent would require.

We've been talking about assets and collecting assets, that's exactly what Carpenter is. With his stuff and upside, he could easily become a part of acquiring other, better assets if he came up this year and had success. That isn't enough to freak out over, but it's enough for a bit of an annoyance.

No, it's not a big deal. It is annoying, though, because I feel like we gave up more than we should have. It's not something I'm going to freak out over or anything, but it's annoying that Lucchino got his way. I was hearing some people throw around set-up guy/closer as his top-end projection, if he could figure out the control. I realize that's unlikely, but I'd think average to above average middle reliever is his most likely outcome.

Because we were getting Theo either way. The Red Sox weren't going to pull him back and force him to work for them another year. Thus, the Red Sox were entitled to a lower level, decent prospect like the Twins received for MacPhail in the exact same situation, but because Lucchino pitched a fit and dragged this on, he got a near-ML ready reliever with some upside. I love that we got Theo and in a vacuum he's well worth Carpenter and then some, but this isn't a vacuum. There was a prior precedent set for this exact situation and we exceeded that precedent by quite a bit. That's what annoys me and why I think the Red Sox won the negotiations. And giving away a guy who could become a really good to great late inning reliever for a long time is fairly significant. Especially considering Carpenter's very close to being ML ready and the prior precedent didn't even make the majors.

Where'd you hear this? Nothing specific, just the rumors flying around of McNutt being possible and Bud possibly favoring the Red Sox in what the two teams meant by "significant" compensation before the process started. I've also got to assume that Theo settled on Carpenter because he felt that waiting longer would have cost us a better prospect. That's pure speculation on my part, though, with nothing to back it up.

Red Sox definitely won this one, but from the sound of the rumors, if Bud had gotten involved we may have had to give up more. Carpenter's not a great prospect by any means, but simply giving away a fairly young pitcher with really good stuff is annoying. Lucchino throwing a hissy fit definitely worked out in his favor.

You're probably right. I expect compensation to be higher than Watkins at this point, but I'm still going to be really annoyed if Selig swoops in and gives away one of our better prospects against an already set precedent.

Giving Lake would be awful. I'd be fine with somebody like Logan Watkins, but that's about as high up the prospect list as I'd go.

I'd be pretty annoyed if that's the case. Carpenter is way too much.

I mentioned defense a couple times in that post. It wasn't the focus, but I did mention it.

I'm somewhat optimistic about Vitters and Lake both because of the emphasis we'll have in the organization now. Theo/Hoyer has been preaching defense and plate discipline ("grinding ABs") since taking over and those are the two major weaknesses of both Vitters and Lake. Both already have contact ability (especially Vitters) and both project to decent to good power, but both have atrocious walk rates and both are weak to butchers in the field. If the Cubs could improve on those weaknesses, both could become really good prospects and I think we've got the guys in place to make that happen, if it's possible.

I was about to make a post that there's no way LaHair would actually be in the cleanup spot, but then I looked at the rest of the options and realized there's really no good option for any middle of the order spot. That's a really horrid lineup.

And I still keep forgetting they're the Miami Marlins now.

This makes me feel better. Still pretty unhappy that we missed out on a completely reasonable Cespedes contract, but Soler is probably the better player in the long term.

I agree that we shouldn't rehash the Pujols argument again, however what I was trying to do there was show that you can talk yourself out of any potential FA pickup. I wouldn't oppose pursuing most of the guys you listed (Marcum and Napoli are probably the exceptions), despite the rather ample question marks surrounding them. Just like I was very much in favor of pursuing one of the greatest players to ever play the game who still most likely has a few great to elite years left in him. Anytime you build a successful organization, you have to take risks. It's not a matter of avoiding risks entirely or not taking big risks (aka contracts), it's about having enough cheap, young talent filling out the rest of the roster to soften the blow when/if the risk doesn't pay off or falters. This management group has shown a terrific ability to put together great, young talent. That, coupled with what should be a large market payroll, enables us to take on greater risks than most teams can handle. If those one or two players are proven elite (Pujols) or great (Wilson) players and your system is completely devoid of either of those types of players, then supplementing is exactly what you're doing. The Cubs' problems of late haven't come from big contracts. They've come from not having any form of young, cheap talent to fill around those big contracts. Zambrano and Soriano haven't kept the Cubs from winning, a lack of young, cheap talent around those big contracts has (among other things).

Oops, was thinking he will turn 29 during the 2013 season. I'd still much rather give an elite superstar positional player a mega deal than a great pitcher a mega deal, even when there's a 3-year age gap the wrong way between the two.

Napoli will be 31 next year and before his 5.6 WAR in 2011, he's never posted a WAR better than 3.0. He's a nice player, but he's getting older and where we would play him? Catcher? He's probably not good enough to keep Rizzo in AAA an extra year, so first isn't really an option. David Wright? There's a really, really good argument to be made that he's a barely above average player at this point and in severe decline. There are all kinds of flaws to him. Upton's a really nice player. Doesn't have the superstar upside Pujols has, but also has fewer red flags. First off, he's a pitcher and nearly 30. Second, he's going to be looking for a mega deal. Third, there's a very realistic chance he doesn't even hit FA. Besides the whole potential mental breakdown issue, he's also a pitcher, nearly 30, and has thrown a ton of innings. He'll also probably want a mega deal as well. At least he's likely to hit FA, though. Unless he's traded, that is. Not a lot of red flags here, other than the obligatory he's a pitcher, around 30, and will want a ton of money. I'd also guess there's a pretty small chance the Phillies let him walk. They'll find the money for him somehow, I expect. Marcum has averaged 2.8 fWAR per season the past 3 years (his best 3). He's a nice pitcher, but I really don't understand why people keep grouping him in with other elite type players like Pujols, Cain, Greinke, etc. Marcum will also be 31 next season and is a pitcher. There's a lot of risk there. Building through FA is different from using FA to supplement what your system doesn't have and likely won't have for a while (superstar talent).

He's getting $9 million a year for 4 years. Going by generally accepted market value, to simply be worth the contract, he'd only have to produce 2 WAR per season. He's very likely to be worth the contract and certainly doesn't have to be a superstar to achieve that.

St. Louis won 90 games last year and lost the best player in baseball in the offseason. Their pythagorean W-L was 88-74. You don't think it's very realistic they drop 4-6 games off that pythag W-L? I don't know that I'd bank on it, but I think there's a pretty good chance of it. The Cards also signed Beltran and will get Wainwright back which will help to make up for the loss of Pujols. Furcal for a full year instead of Theriot is also a plus. Furcal's getting old, Carpenter is always a major injury risk, Beltran is old, Berkman is old, Wainwright is coming off a full season injury and may be rusty, at least early on. I think Molina is also 30+, but could be remembering wrong. I tend to think the Cardinals are, at best, the same as last year and probably a little to a lot worse.

I think I just misread your earlier posts. I agree with all of this.

St. Louis won 90 games last year and lost the best player in baseball in the offseason. Their pythagorean W-L was 88-74. You don't think it's very realistic they drop 4-6 games off that pythag W-L? I don't know that I'd bank on it, but I think there's a pretty good chance of it. The Reds finished 2011 with a 79-83 record. Their pythag W-L was 83-79, so they do have that going for them, however. They did add Latos, but then treaded water from there - losing Cordero, adding Madson and guys like Jeff Francis and Willie Harris. Do you see them making a 10+ game jump from last year? Maybe, but it's certainly not a certainty. I could easily see the winner of the NL Central finish with 85-88 wins.

I may have misread your posts, and if so I apologize. However, what triggered me to post that was what I thought I saw in your posts that you were justifying the Cubs passing on Cespedes and justifying the As signing him because they are closer to contention than we are. If that's what you intended to say, I disagree with that because of what I posted - they may have a stronger minor league core than us, but we have much, much better resources and, thus, can effect a much quicker turnaround than them. If we're willing to use those resources, though, which we haven't been to this point.

Here's the thing I think you're missing, though: because we're a big market team, we don't have to build exclusively through the minors. The As have no choice but to mire themselves in mediocrity until their young core is in the majors and ready to contend. We don't, or shouldn't. We shouldn't have to rebuild as extensively or as long as a small market team like the As do simply because we have the capability of spending money (intelligently) through FA without crippling ourselves. I'm pretty bothered by missing on Cespedes.

I still think we need a lot to go right (and keep Garza) to have a chance at contending next year. We'll also be relying on the other teams in the division not improving that much as well. We need the right players at the right positions at the right price to all come available, plus we need multiple guys on our own team to develop well to take a big jump next year. Not that this can't happen, I just think contention next year is pretty unlikely unless everything works out just right. That said, I still think this has been a very good offseason. My enthusiasm is still lessened because I don't like that they're making no effort to contend for at least a year, but I think the moves themselves have been excellent in moving in the direction the front office wants to. Ultimately, I'm just happy we have a front office that sets a philosophy and follows it consistently. Even though I disagree with the scale of the rebuilding process, I'm still glad we at least have a philosophy and will follow it. That makes us a far better organization than we were under Hendry and I'm excited about that.

They seem to think the bolded. From what craig said earlier, if they think he's 6'3, sitting comfortably at 91-93 and touching much higher than that, then they think he's much better than conventional wisdom. For me, if the Cubs are right in their scouting of him, then this is a fantastic deal. If conventional wisdom is right, then this is an iffy deal, but one that in the absolute worst case scenario is just a slight waste of money. I still like the signing.