XZero771679666304

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here. There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know. That's how you're acting. There are still several prime targets on the board, but you're accusing the FO of ignoring all FA. They've just passed on the ones you really wanted, so you're having a hissy fit, or so it appears. Main thing I've been getting out of it is that in a pretty strong FA year, where we have money coming off the books, a year where the Yankees and Red Sox aren't spending money, and where the FA's would fill holes that we have (nothing prospect wise either), we haven't done anything. If we get the Cubans and Fielder, there might be a different outlook from some members on the board. But for right now, our team that sucked last year is getting worse day by day. And I don't see it being much better in 2013 unless we pop open the checkbook despite all this amazing young talent we've picked up. People are casting aspersions and declaring that the FO is actively and intentionally crapping the bed while most of the most likely FA targets (based on what Theo said day 1) are still on the board. I, for one, find this line to be hysterical and premature. I just think people should wait and get a little more perspective (such as seeing what happens between now and ST) before freaking the [expletive] out. I mean we're not children here, are we? I know we have a hole at 1B and Pujols and Fielder are as good as it was going to get for a long time as far as FA 1B go. But Pujols has significant risk (not the kind of risk you see with most FA) and the contract he got was just too much given those risks. But Fielder is still out there, is likely to be had for far less than what Albert did and depending on who you believe, the Cubs are very much in on him. I am very much in favor of matching or exceeding the maximum offer he is likely to get. And the Cubans, who very much fit the mold of being long term assets. I'm not thrilled with the offseason so far, I'm just in favor of reserving alarmist, pejorative judgement until a little bit of context is available.

I think many people had an unrealistic idea of what the market for Z was going to be. It wasn't a good trade, but it was as good as it was going to get. If you insisted on trading him. Again, why wouldn't you? If you're not competing in 2012 and you're not extending him, what is there to be gained from keeping him? Not a damned thing. And don't say we should have waited and let him recoup value for the deadline, because even if he performed well, a trade partner wold only get two months of him, setting his value back. And then there is the risk of him crapping the bed and getting absolutely nothing. Seeing Z go out like this sucks, but it is what it is.

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here. There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know. That's how you're acting. There are still several prime targets on the board, but you're accusing the FO of ignoring all FA. They've just passed on the ones you really wanted, so you're having a hissy fit, or so it appears.

I think many people had an unrealistic idea of what the market for Z was going to be. It wasn't a good trade, but it was as good as it was going to get.

http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd358/Cloudstrife219/everyone2.jpg

I've long suspected that this was the case. I don't subscribe to overblown "chemistry" theories, but I do think Theo and Jed inherited a situation with Z that had become untenable. Theo may not buy into it either, but it the players really do, and they feel really strongly about it, then it becomes an issue. And as it became clear the team wasn't likely to compete in 2012, there was no reason not to trade him. I think it's also likely Miami was the only team that was going to be willing to take him on, largely because of Ozzie. Plagiarizing my article on NSBB's home page, are you? Haha, that's funny, but no. I'm ashamed to say I haven't read a front page article in ages. Nice choice of words, though.

I've long suspected that this was the case. I don't subscribe to overblown "chemistry" theories, but I do think Theo and Jed inherited a situation with Z that had become untenable. Theo may not buy into it either, but it the players really do, and they feel really strongly about it, then it becomes an issue. And as it became clear the team wasn't likely to compete in 2012, there was no reason not to trade him. I think it's also likely Miami was the only team that was going to be willing to take him on, largely because of Ozzie.

Any info on the personal services contract?

davearm, maybe.

Things would have to break really well for it to happen. Adding Fielder would be a significant boon.

BUT THEY DIDN'T SIGN PUJOLS OR GIVE ARAM 3 YEARS! THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE TEAM WORSE, CAN'T YOU SEE IT?!? For someone who likes to use the term hyperbole and mocks those using it, this is a strange post. If I was being serious, it would have been a strange post.

BUT THEY DIDN'T SIGN PUJOLS OR GIVE ARAM 3 YEARS! THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE TEAM WORSE, CAN'T YOU SEE IT?!?

Choosing to actively avoid making a bad team better is essentially actively choosing to be bad. Also, avoiding all free agents is stupid. Choosing not to make poor long term decisions (Pujols and Ramirez) to salvage 2012 is sabotaging the team? And did you read the rest of that post, or are you just ignoring it? And "ignoring" an overpriced FA constitutes a policy of ignoring FA? Good to know. And for the 206th time, Fielder, the Cubans and others are still in play.

Where is anyone make such a general claim? I said spending 10/265 on Pujols would have been foolish, because it was. I've been saying that a 10 year deal was too much since talks with the Cards broke down in February and people here started entertaining the possibility of signing him. It became and even riskier proposition after the year he had. Apparently any semblance of fiscal restraint constitutes being unwilling to spend.

They aren't actively trying to win yet, that's for certain. They're not placing 2012 ahead of the long term, which is the only thing I think you can say with any degree of certainty right now. Saying the FO is actively trying to lose in 2012 is ludicrous. They have not yet done anything to make the team better in 2012. That can be said with certainty. Not doing anything to improve a bad team make not be actively trying to lose, but if you aren't doing anything to try and get better, it's the same damn thing. There is nothing ludicrous about being upset at what they are currently putting out there for 2012. For [expletive]'s sake. Saying they are "actively trying to lose" implies they are trying the make the team as bad as possible. That's completely stupid. Utterly. Categorically. Being upset and disappointed because we're going to have to endure a rebuilding year is fine. I feel the same way. Saying the FO is trying to make the team as bad as possible in 2012 is a whole other thing altogether. It would make you look like a crazy person. They are putting the long term interests ahead of 2012. That is clear. You can look at the moves Theo and Jed didn't make (notably Pujols) and, if you're being objective, note several legitimate reasons why they weren't made. And note the bolded in your own post and realize several more sensible pieces are still solidly in play.

They aren't actively trying to win yet, that's for certain. They're not placing 2012 ahead of the long term, which is the only thing I think you can say with any degree of certainty right now. Saying the FO is actively trying to lose in 2012 is ludicrous. If a person is to the point where they believe that, it's time to take a step back and do some breathing exercises, or maybe try some meditation. There are a few people here acting hysterical and drawing conclusions with no regard for context because the FO hasn't "swung the dick" in the first couple months.

Probably true. I agree. Hyperbolic BS.

And the other rotation holes? I think that depends in part on what happens with Cashner and McNutt this season. If things break bad on those two and trade opportunities don't present themselves, well, like I said it's a deep FA class. There will be many variables in play this season, like hoe BJax progresses, how Cash and McNutt pitch, how Volstad and Wood pitch, how Stewart and DeJesus hit, how Castillo does (and whether that influences a Soto trade), and numerous other factors. And then there's the fact we're not even through this offseason.

Failing a Fielder signing, I think you deal Garza for a package that includes a strong 1B prospect and attempt to address the rotation hole via the 2013 FA class, which is pretty deep in SP.

Because HR/FB rates are extremely volatile? In what must have been the last few minutes, fangraphs actually put up an article detailing the effectiveness of FIP, xFIP, SIERA, and the various projection systems at predicting future performance. Click here I'll be honest, after reading that I'm considering making the jump to SIERA as my go-to. Just for giggles, here's the aggregate 2010-2011 SIERA for some players relevant to the discussion (I only did two years because Travis Wood only has two years of data): Mat Latos: 3.33 Hiroki Kuroda: 3.60 Roy Oswalt: 3.64 Ubaldo Jimenez: 3.71 Ryan Dempster: 3.76 Matt Garza: 3.79 CJ Wilson: 3.80 Edwin Jackson: 3.92Gio Gonzalez: 3.98 Trevor Cahill: 4.08 Travis Wood: 4.22 Chris Volstad: 4.23 Rick Porcello: 4.25 Randy Wells: 4.31 Carlos Zambrano: 4.39 Paul Maholm: 4.40 Mark Buehrle: 4.56 Joe Saunders: 4.70 Interesting. I still think Jackson is really underrated on this board. Maybe, but Jackson is unarguably a volatile player, and his asking price (thus far) is pretty ridiculous. He's just not likely to be worth the risk, unless the price comes way down. He is intriguing, though.

Uh ... I'd challenge the notion that the Nationals are unlikely to make the playoffs in 2012. Not saying they will, but that's a very strong team ... without Fielder/Harper/Rendon. Add in the system to make trades, and I think their chances of making the playoffs are as good as most of the perceived top teams in the majors. I have a hard time seeing the Nationals in the Top 2 of a group that includes Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Washington, and probably a team from the West as well. Particularly playing in the East. The wild cards stand a good chance of coming from the Central and West because the bottom of those divisions are so weak. Making the WC in the East is a much tougher road. The Mets are the only team in that division that isn't going to be fairly good.

Admittedly I'm still at bit befuddled as to why some people are bemoaning not signing Pujols at the terms the Angels gave him. I really believe he's only got 3-4 years of 4-5 WAR production left in him. At 6-7 years I'm very interested because his early production will offset the last 3-4 years, but at 10 I'm firmly out. A 27-year old Pujols? Sure. But an already declining 32 year old Pujols? Not so much. I think Fielder at 5-7 years with vesting options makes a lot more sense. But like you I'd absolutely balk at 8-10. And I don't suffer from any Soriano-related trauma. Soriano was an awfully risky signing because he was 31 and so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs. That doesn't apply to the guys we're talking about, but that doesn't mean going "all in" on any of them is necessarily a good idea.

He can make as many marginal upgrade trades as he damn well pleases, I don't give a crap about that. I want a freaking free agent or three to actually have an impact on their chances in 2012. It costs nothing but money and does nothing to damage their ability to contend in 2014 and beyond. That just isnt't true, and I know that you know it. I don't blame you for wanting to win now (that is, 2012). I'm on the other side of that fence - I can hold off a year of it means we are building something sustainable. I'm giving Thoyer a year or two to show me that their way is the right way. How does it cost more than money? He's not talking about signing somebody that will wind up blocking a top prospect. He's also not talking about how we need to win now. He's saying "hey, maybe we should try and add really good players now, that way we'll have them for 2013 beyond too!" Reclamation projects and pre-arb guys aren't the only ones under control for more than a year. That is absolutely true. The notion being propagated that adding big name FA and building for the future are mutually exclusive modes of operation is utterly ridiculous. However, I think there is some merit in the "paying for future production, not past performance" idea that Theo espouses. I think the guys that best fit that mold are still on the market (sans Darvish). And foolishly or not, I still think that we're major players for Fielder, Cespedes and Soler.

Maybe when we get that TV deal. Till then, practicing a small degree of restraint is probably still in order.

Measure now doesn't mean measured later. Pick your battles. The Cubs have money, but simply spending like crazy just to make it rain (see a declining, 32 year old Albert @ 10/265) is just idiotic. Now if someone else nabs Prince for less than 8-10 years, I'll start to wonder what people are thinking.