CUBZ99

No, the part that determines values of players. There is really no point on arguing this anymore, you seem to be more intent on making up excuses than dealing with facts. Just for kicks, whose fault is it if the team doesn't place a winning bid or value a player properly?

uhhh, it's still to be determined whether or not darvish will turn out to be a good investment. please go back to cubs.com He was a 5+ WAR this year and worth over $22MM according to Fangraphs, what was he paid this year? Do you think he was a bad investment for the Rangers?

There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/05/the-cubs-were-the-runners-up-for-yu-darvish/ A much later report ESPN from Buster Olney said the Cubs in fact finished second, and all teams were at least $35MM behind the Ranger's bid. Tonight is excuse-central for Jed/Theo. How does that change the fact that they lost out on the bidding, and yet they had plenty of budget to spend if they thought he was worth it? Anybody can make up excuses for failures. Some of you guys/girls are going all out contortionist to twist the moves into a positive for the new front office. So far they have managed to do the impossible, which is to make the team even worse than where Hendry had it. did it ever occur to you that they might have CHOSEN not to invest over 100 million in a japanese pitcher who has never pitched in the majors? and even though the major league roster is worse now than it was with hendry, the organization is in much better shape. It was still a failure on the part of the scouting system. The Cubs had the money to sign him and should have at least made a competitive bid, but they didn't and lost.

There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/05/the-cubs-were-the-runners-up-for-yu-darvish/ A much later report ESPN from Buster Olney said the Cubs in fact finished second, and all teams were at least $35MM behind the Ranger's bid. Tonight is excuse-central for Jed/Theo. How does that change the fact that they lost out on the bidding, and yet they had plenty of budget to spend if they thought he was worth it? Anybody can make up excuses for failures. Some of you guys/girls are going all out contortionist to twist the moves into a positive for the new front office. So far they have managed to do the impossible, which is to make the team even worse than where Hendry had it. The clear implication is that they thought they were making a competitive bid. Sure, they could have chose to make a massive play like the Rangers, but they didn't place a "token" bid, which is the case some have tried to make. The rest of your post is too stupid to warrant a response. Exactly the type of response I expected. Excuse, excuse, excuse.....except now instead of an intelligent response an obligatory resort to demeaning behavior. You made my point for me.

The [expletive] it doesn't. Holy [expletive], do you really believe this? No [expletive]. Nobody is saying it turn out to be a mistake to wait to try and force a better deal at the deadline. It's hardly something crippling or some kind of humiliating failure, and it's not like they still won't likely get a good return for him. Are you really THAT bothered by this? There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. It was barely brought up before, and there was seemingly no progress before it went down, so, ooooh, huge changes on the project that will get done regardless because we're talking about a hugely valuable asset for the city. Oh, and it was brought up...by Rahm, when he said after the fact it wouldn't impact things. So I guess you only believe certain things he says when it's convenient to make you feel more sad and cranky over the Cubs. But yeah, this was really embarrassing, because there's a score kept over those things, I guess. How would we get a better return for garza now, when he is less of an asset because of the injury and the less years of control than last year? It wont happen. Why am I concerned with this? Have you seen our AAA, AA, and High A teams? If we arent spending in free agency and we dont have other chips to trade how does this team get better at all in the short term? Garza was our shot at major league ready pitching prospects. Now we will get considerably less barring an incredible stretch by Garza. Multiple media outlets were reporting that the blue jays had actually won the bidding for Darvish shortly before the rangers were announced. Toronto newspapers were reporting a bid in the $50 mil range amongst others. Buster olney is an idiot and his one crappy article doesnt trump multiple others to the contrary. I dont see how its convenient for me that the articles before the joe ricketts bs came out that everything was positive and there was a purported plan. And afterwards nothing but negativity and no plan? It seems rather clear not sure why you want to spin it any other way. These things are embarrassing because the cubs cant seem to get out of their own way on several fronts. I dont think we have made any progress this year beyond the draft and soler and that was a given with or without Hendry. And I was one of the people saying this will be a 4-5 year transformation before we see a .500 team. Unfortunately Ive seen very little growth and more of the same spinning wheels. You forgot to add that the top prospect is still a Hendry draft pick.

There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/05/the-cubs-were-the-runners-up-for-yu-darvish/ A much later report ESPN from Buster Olney said the Cubs in fact finished second, and all teams were at least $35MM behind the Ranger's bid. Tonight is excuse-central for Jed/Theo. How does that change the fact that they lost out on the bidding, and yet they had plenty of budget to spend if they thought he was worth it? Anybody can make up excuses for failures. Some of you guys/girls are going all out contortionist to twist the moves into a positive for the new front office. So far they have managed to do the impossible, which is to make the team even worse than where Hendry had it.

1) They shouldn't have let it leak prior to getting Dempster's approval. How is it not the Cubs fault? If they had handled it properly there would have been no confusion. 2) How was it not a bad thing? They failed to trade him at his highest value. Now he is damaged goods and his value is most certainly less than it was during Spring Training last year. 3) They weren't even in the ballpark with Darvish. That is a failure on their part. 4) That was another failure on the Ricketts part and a silly slip up. Once again if it wasn't such a big deal, why were the other Ricketts in such panic trying fix things. I'm all for giving the new regime a chance to turn things around, but the new regime has been less than impressive so far.

Think he's talking about Joe Ricketts Super PAC against Obama when the Cubs were negotiating with Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel about a Wrigley renovation deal. I know what he was talking about; he's presenting it like the Cubs had some deal lined up and then Joe's political ties squashed the whole thing. That didn't happen. The Cubs were seemingly nowhere closer to getting a deal with the city than they were before that came to light; it was just political gossip fodder that didn't do much of anything to change the limbo status of the Cubs vs. Chicago. Yeah, that is why all of the other Ricketts were doing serious damage control for weeks after the story. I agree that we should give them a chance to put their stamp on the team, but so far they have been pretty much more of the same or worse.

You're one to talk Why not comment on the failed the trade instead of taking shots at other posters?

Two deals that looked great for the Cubs, too. With as secretive as the team is with the local media, I wonder why they can't keep stuff quiet during deals.

Thanks. Hypothetically, if a team wanted to sign a major IFA which would exceed the IFA budget and make them forfeit their pool money the next year, what would stop them from trading all of their IFA pool money prior to the signing? Granted they would be taxed a great deal, but still.

Quick question for those that have looked at the trade-ability of international signing money. When does the budget money become trade-able?

A fairly reasonable deal? I guess your right. Looks like he was worth approx. $15.2MM this year according to fangraphs with value of contract being $17MM per year. So not far off, but not ideal going into his 30's.

I would be fine with Karros. I could see him and Len having good chemistry.

The team could have around $50M to spend this offseason and stay at a consistent baseball budget. Take $10M off that for Vogelbach's veggie diet and whatever Baez wants and we've still got a lot free to invest in upgrading the rotation. Yes, and a Haren type investment would seem like the low risk/high reward type chances this front office would take.

According to Buster Olney, Ethier may be on the market. Depending on the cost, I wouldn't mind the Cubs taking a look at him. Obviously, I wouldn't be in favor of trading the farm for him as he will be turning 31 in April. But he did sign a fairly reasonable deal and would be under control for the next 5 years.

Maybe one of them will be the Cubs next Color analyst?

Honestly, if I were a Sox fan, I'd be embarrassed by him. http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-whitesox/whitesox-talk/Hawk-Stone-up-for-Ford-C-Frick-Award-vot?blockID=782181 Good stuff. :lol: Len and Bob were near the bottom of the list.

What joke? This is a message board. I've voiced my opinion on the Cubs broadcast booth. You don't have to agree with it, and many here don't. In fact, based upon the last few pages, my preference for an announcer is not the preference of anybody else on the board. I wasn't aware that it was against NSBB rules to post a positive comment on a rival announcer.

I would take Hawk any day of the week over Len. You're kidding, right? I "think" I'd trade Len for Vin, but other than that(mostly nostalgic too, on that even) Len is the best guy out there, in my mind. No, I know he uses a crazy amount of cliches and can get annoying at times, but I love his enthusiasm for the game and for his team. He is also informative and entertaining to listen to. Len is from the cookie cutter school of broadcasting, which is fine as long as they get someone with a personality to team him up with.

I would take Hawk any day of the week over Len.

So much that I disagree with here. Replacing Len with Sutton would be awful. Len was the reason the pairing was good, he wasn't elevated by Brenly in any way. I guess I see it different. I think Len is a decent enough announcer but I would much prefer Sutton. IMO Bob was the more entertaining of the two the more valuable one to the broadcast team. Blasphemy! Not sure where to even start with this. I see that I am in the minority with my opinion. Len is pretty average and boring. Could you imagine a broadcast team of Len and Moreland? Whoever the Cubs pick, I hope they have a little bit of personality.

So much that I disagree with here. Replacing Len with Sutton would be awful. Len was the reason the pairing was good, he wasn't elevated by Brenly in any way. I guess I see it different. I think Len is a decent enough announcer but I would much prefer Sutton. IMO Bob was the more entertaining of the two the more valuable one to the broadcast team.

I wouldn't mind if the Cubs replaced Len with Sutton. I don't mind Len, but as someone stated early the Len and Bob combo was better than the sum of its parts.

Each MLB team is only allowed one player below AA so that can't be right. I thought I read somewhere that Soler and Baez could both go because Soler was on the 40 man roster. Don't know how accurate the article or blog was.