XZero771679666304

That's certainly one way of putting it. Another would be is that these kind of IFA signings was exactly the kind of thing the FO themselves emphasized as being critical to improving the Cubs in both the short and long term. Another would be to yet again point out that this was a player the FO was very interested in and was apparently willing to spend a lot of years and money on (along the lines of what the Dodgers ultimately signed him for) and yet he ended up with another team. No, it's not some screw up, but it's definitely a very noticeable failure in that this is exactly the kind of signing they were adamant about wanting and needing and they didn't get him. If Puig comes back to earth (and he certainly will, to one degree or another) and Soler explodes over the next year or two, are we still having this conversation? Do the Cubs have to sign every player they have interest in not to be "failing"? A 100% hit rate is something that doesn't happen for any team. With Puig we're talking about a tiny sample size. It's a little early to be doing a post mortem on the Cuban signings. That's really my issue with the tangent this thread has taken.

When I read "agreed to", I do not interpret that as "signed". Learned that lesson a long time ago.

Again, it was mostly analysts/reporters/bloggers/message boards/etc. that were laughing at them. When actually look IN "the industry" you had other teams very interested and willing to spend a lot of money, including the Cubs. Who gives a [expletive] if the people on the outside were laughing? They were laughing because they were out of the loop and wrong. There were a few teams interested, but there wasn't the level of interest that was shown to Cespedes and Soler. The only media input needed to discern that were the reports of how many teams were bidding. And let's be honest, the media is privy to much of what these FOs are thinking as well. Taking everything into account, it's pretty safe to say that Puig wasn't as well regarded as Cespedes or Soler. And you know, some guys no one sees coming. It happens. Anyone trying to paint missing on Puig as some sort of gaffe by the FO is really reaching for reasons to criticize.

Well, there's that at least.

2 of them. Which is why I used 20 years instead of 30. But even if we go 30, the fact that the Cubs have had six playoff appearances spread out over that time frame, while the Pirates have had just about nothing to show up to the ballpark to see for 20 consecutive years has to have some bearing. I mean even if you take out the Cubs' playoff appearances since 1992, at least there was a few seasons of Sammy mashing to watch. It's been 20 years of baseball desolation in Pittsburgh.

Cespedes is the one you can point at and say the FO messed up. I see this a lot, and, I don't know. Is he really that great? I don't lose much sleep over not having Cespedes. Is he great? No. But he's good, played a position of need and was relatively inexpensive. It was an opportunity to acquire cost effective production. And FTR (not directed at you), I would be shocked if long term Puig is anywhere near as good as what we've seen in his one month.

Baseball executives are supposed to have a greater ability to judge such things than the media experts that write about them and especially the fans who form opinions based on those media reports. It's not hindsight for them. Well the Cubs were one of the few teams that paid him any attention at all, there was less competition for him among teams/execs than there was for Soler or Cespedes, if we want to use what execs think as a measuring stick. I wasn't talking about the media.

Actually Puig is about a year older. And has had character issues. And, you know, small sample size. Darvish was a blind bid. Cespedes is the one you can point at and say the FO messed up. When people were talking about the Cubans before they signed, the discussion was about Cespedes and Soler. Puig was an afterthought almost, certainly not a "priority" sign. But hindsight is 20/20.

Uh, no. How are the Cubs brief flashes of being not terrible better than those teams in that period? I don't know about 30 years, but I can definitely tell you that I would much rather take the Cubs' past 20 over the Pirates' past 20, and if you don't see why then you're crazy. Probably than Milwaukee's too, but not by as much.

On numbers, the last time Arrieta looked like he was worth a damn was 3 years ago. Since then he's alternated sucking in the majors and sucking in the minors as an old guy Or just last year? Yeah, his FIP and xFIP were quite respectable in 2012.

And I'm pretty sure Puig wasn't as well regarded as Soler or Cespedes.

If you wanted someone impactful, you should have traded him back when he had 64 starts left in his contract rather than 16. it wasn't my choice to make I would have dealt him prior to last season, but the FO obviously felt that they'd have more leverage closer to the trade deadline, and they were probably right. Unfortunately Garza's injury derailed that plan, and with it the chance to land near MLB-ready "impact" talent. Now Garza has only half a season left and is coming off two significant DL stints, consequently the return is going to be much less. I don't agree with Kyle much, but he's right on this subject. Garza has made it clear he's not going to give the Cubs a discount, so here's what we're left with: 1. Garza is not an ace, but he's going to test the market and he's likely to get paid like one. 2. Garza is coming off of multiple DL stints (and I still haven't forgotten his elbow scare back in 2011), so he's high risk. Unfortunately, other teams know this too, so they're not going to give up a haul to acquire him. I would also say that a return of one or two top 100 prospects or an extra first round draft pick are probably preferable choices to signing Garza to what would almost certainly be a really bad contract. Not just "all FA contracts are bad" bad, but really ill-advised for any team. I actually have an affinity for Garza and will hate to see him go, but this situation screams "stay away". It really sucks, but it's hard to say anyone really screwed up. Garza got hurt and it just fucked everything up.

I think that seriously underestimates the price to keep Garza. He's not going to come back on a reasonable deal. He's going to hit a money-rich, talent-poor FA market as the best pitcher available and get something stupid. Then you can pat yourself on the back with the No. 35 overall pick or whatever that might slot into the back of our top 10, instead of getting a top 100 prospect + a guy as good as the No. 35 pick. Then sign him. If you can't get an impactful return in trade there is no point in trading him. Incremental improvement does nothing for this team. Given his recent health record, I'm not sure that would be wise, even in a "win-now" mindset. I think there's a decent chance his elbow is a time bomb. Also, I've seen reports recently that made it pretty clear he isn't particularly interested in an extension. If he's not going to recognize that the fact he has spent so much time on the DL should mitigate his price, then you trade him for the best return you can get or you let him go (after making the qualifying offer).

Yeah, the big "national following" teams have been pretty uninspiring recently. But fwiw, the Harris Sports Popularity Poll showed a modest gain for MLB this year over last, and MLB being pretty solidly still the second most popular sport.

well, so much for that.

poop

Too bad there's not an affiliate around here. It's just about the antithesis of Florida in terms of precipitation.

Roni Torreyes was going to be too good, too soon, and had to be shipped out. The Cubs have a glut of MI prospects, and Torreyes wasn't hitting. And you know that.

Nice. Of course I'll be waiting for a report to the contrary until it's official, but nice still.

Yeah, but no one was complaining when he was traded.

I think we'll get a decent return, but not as much as some might expect. He's pitching well and has a good track record, but he's only under control for the rest of the season and has spent a lot of time on the DL the past couple years.

And I had benched him on my fantasy team this week. #-o

Theo and Jed are pimps and you know it. I will say this: I'm intrigued by the fact that they eschewed a prospect return and instead went after pitchers who *might* have value in 2014. Len Casper tweets: @lencasperCubs moves so good that many people don't even know what they did today. Focus on players traded is missing the pt. Fun to watch process. Len Casper is a Red Wings fan, so he can shut up forever. Don't care

I wonder if a Garza + Arrieta package could bring back a haul. I've seen this idea floated in other places. If Sand Diego really does like Arrieta, this could all be geared toward a bigger deal with San Diego. Perhaps there is a player(s) that Byrnes & Co. wouldn't part with for Garza alone, but that adding Arrieta might entice them to.

Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age. I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two. Is this the generally accepted peak, or Kyle's "peak"? http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pitcher_Curves_All1.png FIP stops improving and begins getting worse between 27 and 28. I see. That decline looks pretty insignificant until about 31-32, though.