WrigleyField 22

Totally not the same thing, but okay. Bottom line is if he is ready to cut or jump the actual surgically operates knee is fine. The overuse thing brought ip above is somewhat of a concern, but not more so than any injury. But everything I've read about ACL injuries is that its mostly mental. So holding back on physical recuperation is unecessary and delays the time when we have a 100% Derrick Rose. Basically, the doctors schedule and Rose's own brain should be plenty on their own to ensure he doesn't rush back. If they do more beyond that they're delaying things. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5691032 ACLs are freak accidents. Nothing there indicates the second was a result of the first not being healed. Its not like throwing a baseball which is pretty much a degenerative motion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally not the same thing, but okay. Bottom line is if he is ready to cut or jump the actual surgically operates knee is fine. The overuse thing brought ip above is somewhat of a concern, but not more so than any injury. But everything I've read about ACL injuries is that its mostly mental. So holding back on physical recuperation is unecessary and delays the time when we have a 100% Derrick Rose. Basically, the doctors schedule and Rose's own brain should be plenty on their own to ensure he doesn't rush back. If they do more beyond that they're delaying things. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once the doctor's say he is healed there really isn't a chance for re-injury. I don't think the Bulls management has a better idea than the doctors. As long ad Rose listens to the doctors he is okay. Babying him further just delays a process that is mostly mental. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see the concern on a 5 year deal other than injury, with pitchers just being susceptible to injuries. We don't have an outlook of wildly exploding costs and hopefully we have an outlook of large revenue increases (Wrigley renovation and I think a new T.V. contract soon). Now mixing in some less risky contracts may be prudent, but one or two 5 year deals shouldn't be a concern when looking at our guaranteed contract outlays and who's hitting FA soon.

Yea I kind of agree on the last point, but I think you can make someargument of execution over philosophy for why the Cubs may not see a lot of use for their overslots in 2011. With the right front office, it absolutely is still an advantage to spend more. Sure there is a dwindling return, like any inefficiency, such as OBP. I don't think it had gotten to the point where it wasn't still an advantage. Still, I think this advantage was less than the advantage of teams who simply stockpiled more picks than the other guys. If that's not a way of saying crapshoot, I don't know what is. Yea, a bit lazy. But its also pretty true. Hendry had an attitude that the developing the minors was secondary to the major leagues. And I'll reiterate, its not about a second or even a first rounder for me. Its about limiting your opportunities. I feel roughly the same if I were to lose a 4th to a 2nd. But if you only consider the major league impact you may i find yourself losing 2-4. And while doing that once isn't going to kill a system it has to be weighed against the alternatives, with a realistic view of where you stand. Its simple economics of allocating resources and every transaction has its obvious costs, its hidden ones and its opportunity costs. Where does the cost of minor league development fall within the major league impact? The second round pick is just like any other cost you consider. No I'm not avoiding any MLB FA, for any reason (other than sucking), but yes, I'm going to consider all costs as it relates to the entire organization and compare it to the other options available. No doubt, its harder, but you can still do it, you just are penalized (in money and picks). But if you felt spending overslot was the most important factor, you still could. I wouldn't argue that to be the case, but just lying out all the varying theories on how one might go about building a strong farm system. I never was. If you got that, I'm sorry. But you did say this: Sounds like more than just any singular pick to me, but an overall philosophy that dries our organization of picks. Although since you misunderstood me, I'll concede I may have read too much into your words. Please correct me if I did. Not scared. Not fetishing. Just trying to look at the entire organization as a single entity that attempts to allocate resources. Simple as that. I'd just say to see all my previous thoughts regarding it not being about one pick, but of the attitude of any player being worthy of signing worth a pick (assuming we are talking starting type players here when we say "any"). When looking at our roster holes there are a lot of players who I would consider. Not every player would I give up a pick for because there are a lot of players who most likely won't cost picks and may even cost less money, allowing other opportunities.

At least try to read everything I've written. Nowhere do I discuss avoiding major leaguers. At this point you've only responded to bits of my posts and ignored all other points. Simple question. Is developing the minor league important? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is silly. It's possible to believe that amateur talent is important but still needs to be weighed against professional talent. Almost all professional talent is more valuable than a single second-round pick. Its not a singular draft pick thats the issue. Its an overall mindset towards developing on both fronts. How can we maximize both. There are major leaguers who will and those who won't affect our ability to develop the minor league system. Its Theo's jobs to manage that in the most efficient way. If you believe the most efficient way is to say every decent major leaguer is worth picks, you may as well ask for Hendry back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what Jackson will cost, but we should have enough to spend more than just one big fish. Dempster 14M, Zambrano 17M, Byrd 6M, Soto 4.3M and Maholm 4.25M is some of the notable salary we are losing, without much in the way of raises due. I don't think we'll go crazy with Greinke and Hamilton or something, but Zambrano alone is 2-3 Maholms plus some. And I don't think we have enough 40 man spots for 9 Maholms. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can look at a few things that clubs who have successfully built from within have done. Spend a lot more is the first. That can't be done anymore without effecting the other part which is having more picks. The last is development, which our previous FO by all accounts didn't really focus on. It also should be a strength of our new FO. So the best we can do is 2/3. If you do believe the draft is a crapshoot it makes no sense to focus on spending more and losing picks (both by signing FA or going overslot). So you're left with trying to have more opportunities, or more likely trying to minimize your lost opportunities. Splurge on a young player at a position of need at a position of scarcity at a fair contract? Thats probably when we forget the pick. But the attitude that any player worth having is worth a pick just leaves us closer to being the Hendry era Cobs. Now if you believe spending is the more important factor then we can not worry about picks, but the more we put towards amateurs, the less we have for such big time players. And finally if you believe that amateur talent just isn't that important, go cheer for the White Sox. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The position matters a lot. Early first-round pick = extremely valuable. Everything else = Pick two dozen vaguely interesting guys and hope one sticks. Avoiding a useful player because you don't want to give up a second-round pick is more like swinging at the first pitch because you are scared you won't get a better one. I'd add even the top 5 picks to that for most drafts. Unless theres a Strasburg its a total crapshoot. But that still underscores my point of it not just being about a second rounder, but any pick. Its giving away a commodity thats limited, so you better be sure its worth it. Being worth it entails way more than just the talent of the player in question. On a side note I hope our current FO can hold a slight advantage in scouting to give us that edge. However the development is where they really should be able to gain the competitive advantage. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The compensation this year would be a 2nd-round pick. If a guy is worth having, he's worth giving up a 2nd-round pick for. What will Angel Pagan cost in relative terms? And what do we think they will each offer going forward? Where else could the money saved be put? Maybe towards Greinke who won't cost any conpensation? What do we think of Greinke? Is he worth it at whatever cost? Can we even get him? Draft picks are a valuable commodity because they are limited. The position of the pick matters obviously, but from a macro view of the system building, losing a pick is a little bit like bunting with the pock in question being like the hitter. You can do it and justify it, but you better be sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By the way we could even see us make a FA signing that costs compensation. Based on age and ability, a guy like Upton could be worth the lost conpensation depending in his cost relative to the market. But we're gonna look at it from all angles. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the best of a [expletive] pool might not be that good? Or a good fit? Or even make sense except in that aquiring them might make some petulant kids feel better for five minutes, until they realize it didn't really help all that much? Again, no one is saying not to spend some money on some players, just that emptying the coffers just because the money is there isn't necessarily a good idea. Other than Upton and Sanchez or Greinke, what is there that begs to be bought? Certainly nothing that's turning the 2013 Cubs into contenders, or help beyond next year (unless it's spun off for more prospects). Any plan for playoffs in 2013 hinges on Castro, Rizzo, Shark, Wood, Castillo, Garza. But if we trot out Brooks [expletive] Raley or some [expletive], any playoff plan hinges on 2/3 of the league dying in a 20 plane crash. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's such an absurd caveat. You can't run a major league baseball team with the idea that you will only use resources on MLB players if there is no conceivable way that the opportunity cost is something that you might have wanted in the future. Well, you can, but you end up with a bullpen full of people nobody ever heard of at and the worst Cubs team in 45 years. No its not. I had a longer response but my phone freaked out. Bottom line we can make improvements to the big league club gradually while not sacrificing the ability to build our system. Then at some point balance it more towards the ML club. But some people think we can tank and then flip a switch to build the big league club once "we're ready". We have to add talent as its available so when our guys like Castro and Rizzo are in their prime we are able to capitalize right away. But if we try to tank and then try for a 30 game improvement we'll find we have likely wasted at least a year of their prime for nothing except marginally better draft position. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Putting the best product on the field." :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Hey you can ignore the qualifier, but when you take out guys who would have negatively impacted our ability to build from within, that's what we've done. Even considering guys we ultimately didn't get but were in play for, like Cespedes and Darvish, we've targeted some good players. Now obviously the midseason trades fly a bit into the face of that, but there's nothing wrong with cutting your losses midseason when you clearly aren't in the playoff race and A) that player doesn't look to contibute beyond this year-Dempster or B) the offer is a sell high steal, and the player still doesn't prohect to contribute long term -Maholm. Someone else mentions developing guys like Castro and Rizzo into stars, but we can't wait for that to happen before we add to them or we've wasted at least a year, and baseball is way to fluid to start wasting years. Especially when it will never be easier to spend on FA. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those teams are locking up their star players now because every team has money. this is a weird thing to say, considering your stance. based on that, doesn't it makes more sense to try and create your own star players instead of having to overbid for star free agents? you said it yourself, everyone has money. you're going to have to overpay more and more for talent in free agency. Regardless of how much money everyone has it will always be cheaper to acquire talent via free agency than it is via trades. When a team is flush with money like the Cubs you can afford to spend money in years where you don't expect to contend, in order to have, ya know, actual talent on the team for years where you plan on actually trying to win games. Money is the greatest asset the Cubs organization has and you guys would rather not use it for 3 years and instead at that point use that money AND the farm system you've spent years of losing building up in order to acquire the same damn players you could've had for just the cash. +1 For some reason people have gotten the idea that Theo's master plan is just to tank. But really when you look at it closely the plan is to put the best product on the field without sacrificing our ability to build from within. With the new FA compensation rules, many more players will be available with no penalty. Right now is a great time to spend in FA. We should be flush with cash, we can't put it towards amatuers, theres no prospects of note that could be blocked (maybe one), and we have a serious talent gap until we develop players. People need to stop expecting some extreme turnaround. You have to add talent along the way, while also insuring you have a system that replenishes lost talent. We should have a pretty good shot at filling a lot of our major holes this offseason without depleting our farm of anything. The rest comes down to the development of guys like Castro, Rizzo, Shark, Wood, etc. No, its highly unlikely we get enough internal improvement from those guys to make a serious run, but they could turn into Mike Trout and it wouldn't matter if Rusin and Raley was the back of your rotation. Dual fronts. Everyone say it. Its really gonna happen, and thats a really good thing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. I'm beginning to wonder if this was a bad move. Its always been a bad idea, because Tice is not an up and coming offense mind trained under a previous great offensive mind. The hope was that having Bates around and not having Martz around would be good enough. Yup. Just another wasted year with Cutler. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flieta made minor leaguers hike up their pants? I mean its obviously a way better look, but ehat a weirdo. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya I picked up Dalton as a speculitive late buy. But I have Brady and am scared to try and play matchups. Yet Dalton has outperformed him the last two weeks. But I have a keeper league, so my Dalton pick may yet pay dividends. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hahahaha thats pretty good. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Watching the replay and trying to compare it to that picture, I think that screen shot is well after any call should be made. I think it was an interception, but not sure that image as damning as it looks. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel like there was controversy a few years back with balls being tampered with so now the NFL holds the kicking balls until they're used. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hasn't he? The amount of money spent on combined baseball operations has appeared to be steadily dropping since he took over. So has revenue as far as I can tell. I dont think there was ever an expectation or indivation they would operate at a loss. Has revenue gone down? They've lost about 250k in attendance since he took over, but they've added some advertising and MLB shared revenues have gone up significantly. If it has, then much of it has been self-inflicted. From when Ricketts took over I think we're down more than 250k. Plus they've put money in a lot of places where it wasn't before. So that comes from the MLB payroll. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hasn't he? The amount of money spent on combined baseball operations has appeared to be steadily dropping since he took over. So has revenue as far as I can tell. I dont think there was ever an expectation or indication they would operate at a loss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We'll never be in position to compete with that outlook. We need to add talent as it comes available at a worthwhile price. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk