neely crenshaw

who cares? I was thinking that also but I kind of think they know what they have in campana and getting him 3 full weeks of at bats will be good for him. I would expect he will be the 5th OF next year just based on defensive replacement and his baserunning, that may depend on how lefties they have as starters also. The other point is although I think Mather is probably gone at seasons end, with Baker gone, he gives you a guy who can play(lose interpretation) infield and outfield. Just adds a bit more depth, as campana can play OF and probably only against righties.

not signing top money free agents is not "holding back" you MLB roster. It's using fiscal responsibility and using your actual roster. They added some players at a solid cost but when you are not close it does not make sense to spend a bunch to be "better" when you can't possibly spend enough to be really good, and especially really good for more than a season. We would have had to add 3 FA starters this year because we had no idea about shark, wood or volstad. we would need to add a lot in the pen. a 3b, a catcher, at least 1 outfielder possibly a 2b, oh and really a 1B because we could not have counted on the unknown of Rizzo or LaHair. what's that about 150 mil(and probably more) to make you happy...and even then we would have no depth and no one trade in order to get better. let them do their job, and try to do this the right way. They deserve the chance, they have the resume. We may not like it, but after all this time, I am willing to give it a try. I think we will see some improvement next year, and definitely the year after. I have no doubt that when we have the base in place, they will spend for what they need! Seriously, how can you doubt that they will spend for players when they didn't flinch at paying 15mil for Z to not play for us

I'm thinking that if they are willing to pay Z 15 mil to not pitch here, they'll be happy to pay that or more for someone to actually pitch for us. I don't see the spending as being an issue. On the other hand, does it make much sense to spend 20 mil to sign a guy when it might make us 5 or 10 wins better? I just keep thinking that when their guy is out there, they'll get him but they won't overspend in order to just a get a "guy". They may have made a play for Hamels as a difference maker next year, but I don't think they'll drop coin to get Blanton if he happens to be the best guy out there.

Darvish was a blind draw. You have no idea how much it will cost to even talk with him. He may end up being the greatest pitcher ever, and it wouldn't have made sense to do it at the price the rangers paid. We could have paid Beltran, Buehrle and Pujols for what it cost for the rights to him. That doesn't even count his deal. When you have so few players it seems a pretty poor decision to throw that much money at a guy who looks great but is very,very unknown. Their goal is to get the organization on solid ground. Yes, it certainly looks like we could do a quick fix and be competitive again very quickly. As much as I enjoyed having those teams that won, and were expected to win it didn't work out. We could do that again, and heck maybe even win a title. However in the long run we would end up right back here again. I have always felt that being from chicago and having money to spend, there is no reason we can't do what the cardinals, braves, phillies, etc do and compete every year. In order to do that you must have a system underneath, you must develop some talent on your own. The more of that you do, the less you have to buy! I know we have a tendency to love our own guys, but you have to look at what we have on the realize there isn't much. Casey Colemen is our closest starter coming from our system? The next best our in AA! Our AAA is stocked with other teams disgards. We are hoping that every possible player works out because we simply don't have any room to miss. Just consider where we would be if Jackson, Vitters, Rizzo and any of the catchers don't turn out. Very shortly we would be at Castro, Shark and Barney. That's a whole lot of spending to be competitive! Just be adding Villanueva we now have 2-3B that are due to develop about the same time. That gives us double the chance of getting 1 there, and if 2 develop...we now have a chip to trade to fill another spot. If you aren't the yankees, you have to do things the right way. They will spend money but we have to get better as an organization or it will just be a repeat. The only regret is that when hendry was here and we were supposed to be loaded with prospects, and he was allowed to spend like a drunken sailor, that it wasn't this group doing it. It sucks being awful. We just have to have faith they know what they are doing, they have the resume. Patience and keep looking at the big picture!

Why wouldn't we have all of the money we would have spent on Garza to spend on a FA pitcher? and more actually. It's been said that money is not a problem. I just don't see why we wouldn't trade him for prospects, and then sign a similar pitcher whether it be for 2013 or 2014. That way we add to our system, and have a top end pitcher. I know everyone likes Garza and he has talent BUT it's not like he has been awesome. His performance is certainly replaceable.

The word was that the dodgers did not feel they "had to have" a starter so they simply were not going to drop the kind of prospects we wanted to get one. I think they would have taken Dempster if they got him for "their" deal and were hoping we couldn't get anything else because of Dempster's stand.

I don't dislike Hendry but he did a horrible job. Yes, he had some successes but when you drop the kind of coin they did you are going to get some good players. My only wish is that they had someone better in the job when they decided to spend. We were close but never made a serious playoff run. With the 3rd highest payroll in baseball you have to some players whether your GM is good or not.

I just don't see Garza being here. They have to restock the farm system because of international and draft rules, you have to make trades to do this unless you want to wait 5 or more years. If they trade Garza for prospects, they then sign a FA top end guy. So they have prospects and a top pitcher. I'm sure they if they can they'll do the same with Soriano and Marmol..either of which should clear waivers this season if they can find a deal. we could have fielder and pujols and we wouldn't have contended.

I don't think the new regime will be here for 19 losing seasons...

there is a difference between contributing and being good. I would also say the old part may be less true, but you could say veteran filler players will be moved out rather than old. We've all said most of these guys aren't going to be here. So basically the purge will continue for more useful players regardless of age. you have to admit there are a whole bunch of pitchers and quite a few players who will not be here by 2015. I am guessing shark may be the only starter, and there may be no one from the bullpen. I would say one more year of full out rebuilding and then the upward move begins.

I think we have one more year of being awful then I can see us moving back toward .500 in 2014, if things/people progress more quickly possibly contending that year. (also depends on FA signings and such) I expect that by 2015 national media is will be at least mentioning us as a serious contender.

I'm sure they have an eye on this coming market, and for sure next year. We are thinking as fans and want to be as good as possible right away. Some seem to feel we should grab free agents in order to win 75-80 games instead 65-70. Doesn't matter if that delays the team from getting to the final destiny of competitive every season, they want to pay to get players out there. It's frustrating but we have to keep faith in the front office and understand they are working on the "business" of baseball not just trying to throw together a team. Hendry proved that if you throw enough money at it you can put a good team together BUT not a good organization. As much as I hate it, look at the cardinals. They lose guys each year, then bring up another and they can play too. We can spend and contend right away but then we hurt ourselves long term. The more we develop, the less we have to buy or trade for. The more we develop, the longer we have control of them. If you look at the types of players we have lost (or will lose), If you want to spend money you can easily replace them. They found guys like Dejesus and Maholm last off season, and they have done very well, but don't confuse that with them being elite or irreplaceable.There was a reason they were available, cheap and choose to go to the Cubs. There will be others.

Bottom line is we need as many prospects as possible. Just because we like them and what they are doing in the minors, it does not translate into making it in the bigs. Having two guys at a position with a similar arrival time line greatly increases that the chance that someone works out. It also gives us chips to someday sell off to fill in the spots we haven't been able to develop. After the play by Dempster, anything good that we got is a bonus because we may have been looking closely at draft pick or even worse Dempster excepting the offer and coming back again. The talk today was to simply forget the Delgado part when evaluating the deal. Delgado was a "mistake" by the Braves and although we could have pulled it off, when that fell through it would be a disservice to count on that type of value showing up again.

some of this has got to be joking

Absolutely. I was not trying to say it's only about working on things, but in some respects it's completely different to the game most people know. Baseball decisions are made all the time based on business not production. Yes, the affiliates care about winning, but the coaches work for the organization. What the organization want comes first. Now of course it's not a free for all of bad choices but guys, especially pitchers are constantly working on things, developing that 3rd pitch or refining the breaking ball. and yes, there place holders to help keep teams competitive but don't think mike brumley is playing short if starlin castro is there. and castro, I know most regular "posters" know this but we did have posts showing quotes of people who were pissed we traded johnson and maholm, and talked of building around them.

most people don't get that the minors aren't about winning or even putting the best team on the field. It's completely about development. a lot like spring training for pitchers. They are sent out to work on things in order advance, not necessarily just go to their strength and try to win. Need to work on your slider? then they'll be throwing it when every the time is right. Even if it may be a disadvantage for the pitcher/team. Then you can talk position players. Making a catcher a 3b to try to get his bat up to the majors? guess who plays third regardless of defensive liabilities? The teams best shortstop might actually be the organizations future 2b..so guess who plays 2nd while a non-prospect plays at short..

yes, but those are the people who truly thought this team would contend because Fielder and Pujols left. Some clearly don't get the idea of building. As much as we may like a certain "role" player, those types of players can be found every off season. there is a reason we could get Maholm for under 5 mil a year when a ted lilly cost 11-12 mil. the pirates signed bedard to basically the same deal to replace him, and I'm pretty sure no one is talking about building around him! We got pieces tonight. We did not get our team of the future. We are simply better off getting prospects to develop, knowing we can then go and sign pieces similar to johnson, baker, soto, maholm, during any offseason. The more prospects we get, the more likely some make it to the bigs, and the more things we have to deal when we sort out exactly what pressing needs we have. Would we be better the rest of this season and maybe even next if we had kept everyone, sure. But in the big picture does it really matter if you win 60 or win 70? To hang onto pieces inorder to be less horrid, would be stupid. However some still don't understand it.

Actually I heard on twitter that many of the cubs were seen hugging Dempster's wife (soon to be ex) surely a sign that he has been dealt. or maybe it was Sandberg's...

dodgers just traded for brandon league

let me try this 1- brian wilson 2- jaokim soria 3-kyle drabek 4-joel zumaya 5-scott baker 6-alex wimmers 7- joe devine 8-brandon beachy 9- drew hutchinson both facing it with tears in their ucl but hoping to avoid it 10-john lackey had it in the offseason prior to 2012, out until 2013 11- carl crawford 12-Tsuyoshi Wada 13-Carlos Carrasco 14-Sergio Escalona 15-danny duffy 16-Jose Ceda 17-Andrew Carignan there are almost as many recovering from 2011 surgeries and waiting to have the surgery

well no, not at 11:30 on Monday night but this season.

for the record Brigham had it also..

10 guys have TJS every second of every day I kinda meant major league pitchers

they can both tell their fans "see, we tried"!

Actually I looked at a couple of articles before putting the names out there. Physically the arm comes back. Velocity returns. The only stumbling block is usually the mental aspects of having a serious arm injury. Not sure why everyone is looking for doom out of this deal. A career could end with a hamstring injury. there are 150 major leaguers with a TJS. There are about 10 guys having it right now. Yes, some did not make it back BUT we will never know if it was the injury or something entirely different. Could be mental, could be their Rehab work, could be fate. It is very common and baseball people do not flinch when it happens.