XZero771679666304

Good lord. i really wish rizzo hadn't come up and laid a complete egg with the padres. his numbers in tucson were crazy last year and i'd be 100% on board with him as a future star without that bad few weeks. there's still the little doubt in the back of my head with him. that being said, the crappy play for the padres might be the reason that he was available at all. He's still really young. If he were 23 or 24 I'd be more concerned about that bad MLB stint. And you're right, if he hadn't struggled he'd still be a Padre in all likelihood.

Good lord.

Give it another 6 weeks or so. Once he and Rizzo arrive watching these games will be a lot more interesting.

If by legit you mean 5-7 homers instead of 2-3, maybe. I mean .380-.400 SLG instead of .350 It could be, but I'm skeptical.

T. Plush having a banner evening.

If by legit you mean 5-7 homers instead of 2-3, maybe.

You've been pissy and reactionary since December. Why stop now?

Volstad hasn't had pinpoint control, but he's had work harder than he should have.

The strike zone tonight is [expletive].

Definitely.

And heeere we go.

I have seen a number of people on here say the Cespedes and Darvish contracts are pretty bad and their teams will be regretting them (especially Cespedes). Well that's silly. The Cespedes contract is only even potentially onerous to a team like the A's, and the only thing exorbitant about Darvish was the posting fee.

Robbers in the Nats OF today

And if Pujols' decline won't be as sharp as the past couple year's numbers indicate, or if Fielder doesn't break down under his own weight, etc., etc. Just because you have money to burn doesn't mean you should throw it in the fire. Signing Fielder to a nine year deal would be pretty close to doing that, due to his body type and the fact he isn't as elite as his rep indicates. And it's harder to be mad about Darvish since it was a blind bid that was lost, not an open bidding war. It's still disappointing. But the problem is any premiere player is going to be a bad contract latter down the line. So are we going to pass on everyone? If there is a viable alternative, and if it's as prodigiously bad as Prince Fielder's was. Again, there are degrees of bad, and the Tigers are going to wear that contract.

And if Pujols' decline won't be as sharp as the past couple year's numbers indicate, or if Fielder doesn't break down under his own weight, etc., etc. Just because you have money to burn doesn't mean you should throw it in the fire. Signing Fielder to a nine year deal would be pretty close to doing that, due to his body type and the fact he isn't as elite as his rep indicates. And it's harder to be mad about Darvish since it was a blind bid that was lost, not an open bidding war. It's still disappointing.

I don't care if Fielder hits 50 this year, that contract was horrible and I'm thrilled the Cubs aren't stuck paying it. Why is it every player we don't sign we are happy because it's a bad contract? Other than Fielder/Pujols, who is that being said about? Those were the only two premiere players on the market. You aren't going to sign a stud to a good contract. That's the reality of baseball. But you said every player we don't sign. And there's bad, and then there's stupid bad. Pujols was the former, Fielder was the latter. You could make case Pujols might have been worth it, but not Fielder. And neither one was going to make the Cubs good this year and Rizzo seems like a good long term solution. Cespedes is a far more troublesome miss.

I don't care if Fielder hits 50 this year, that contract was horrible and I'm thrilled the Cubs aren't stuck paying it. Why is it every player we don't sign we are happy because it's a bad contract? Other than Fielder/Pujols, who is that being said about?

Yeah, it has an all too familiar feel.

Might that be a stamina issue resulting from such little work over the past couple years? I suppose the fact he was still capable of reaching the mid-90s is some consolation.

I don't think "blowup" means what you think it means. It's pretty hard to "blow up" this team any more than it has been, and I highly doubt what few older players they still have will be around if they have any trade value. "Doing worse" does nothing to change that; this wasn't a team built to depend on holding on to anyone currently on the 25-man roster outside of Castro (and hopefully Garza). Yeah, and I don't think Theo and Jed will be waiting until the team is out of "contention" to deal away any tradeable assets there currently are.

I'm pretty sure Scioscia is in love with Trumbo, and I don't mean that as a euphemism. He was touting him for MVP last year, in spite of the fact he's a one dimensional hacking out machine.

Cespedes just annihilated a ball. I mean he obliterated it. And earned himself some chin music by admiring.

I think you're overestimating how close to contention the team was. I don't think you can deal Cashner and Marshall away and feel like you're taking a legitimate shot. I think the team was Pujols/Fielder + Cespedes + Darvish and maybe Wilson from being on the level of the competition. Sure, the rotation this year looks much better, but it is mostly middle-bor guys and could still go either way. Prior to Carpenter's injury, both the Cards and Brewers had legit top of the rotations, 1-3. The Cubs had Matt Garza. We had one star position player, a handful of old question marks and a bunch of holes. Even with Pujols and Fielder gone, the competition still has guys like Holliday, Braun, Votto, Bruce, Weeks, Beltran, Berkman, Phillips, Hart, Stubbs, etc. And our closer may or may not be broken and Wood is fragile (which is why you don't deal Cashner and Marshall if you want to go for it in 2012). It was going to take a near-perfect series of events for the Cubs to be strong competitors in 2012. As for the "Every opportunity to win is sacred" quote, you should have recognized it as a platitude when you heard it.

If anyone freaked out about landing Theo bc they thought the cubs would win a WS this year, they were hopelessly unrealistic. They could have won the World Series in 2012. There was a significant, non-zero chance of it. There's a non-zero chance of it this year. But if we're dealing in probability, we were facing an uphill battle even if Ramirez and Pena were re-signed and Darvish and Cespedes were signed. Hell, plug Pujols in place of Pena and it still would have been tough sledding. The team had a bunch of holes and three clearly better teams in the division. 1-2 additions weren't making the 2012 Cubs strong contenders. I'm disappointed that the season is lost, but I can't fault Theo & Jed for doing what they have. If you're advocating doing just enough to make the team a borderline contender, that sounds a whole lot like the methodology that made it the hot mess Theo & Jed inherited. If you keep ARam and Pena and add Cespedes and "go for it" in 2012, you almost certainly keep Cashner, Marshall and Zambrano. You also don't make whatever trades are to be made this summer. BJax likely spends the whole year in the minors. You're left with an aging Ramirez on a multi-year contract and a hole with no long term solution at 1B. And for what? A marginal at best shot at the postseason? We don't know that those deals would not have been made, but a team committed to 2012 probably doesn't deal away assets that are more likely to help them immediately (Cashner & Marshall), so I am skeptical about claims that they could have gone for 2012 and still improved long term interests as they have. That is a luxury teams that don't have a slew of holes enjoy. Regardless, I'll be much more willing to make a judgement about Theo and Jed at this time next year.

It's a long way from now till the fall, but it is encouraging for sure. Having a James/Hill/Nunn guard lineup would be really, really nice.