Christian Petersen - Getty Images
Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers gestures after he hit a double in the top of the fourth inning against the St. Louis Cardinals during Game 4 of the National League Championship Series at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Missouri. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)
So the Texas Rangers are the lucky club (depending on your definition of "lucky") who will get to spend probably $75 million on top of their $51.7 million posting fee for Yu Darvish.
Personally, I think that would have been worth doing. The Rangers, clearly, can afford it with the money they have from their deal with FSN Southwest. For Darvish, pitching with Rangers Ballpark -- a known launching pad -- could be problematic, but Darvish gives up very few home runs, just 19 in his last three seasons, covering 616 innings.
Congratulations to the Rangers, although maybe "congratulations" on having to shell out $125 million or so for one player isn't the right word. When will the Cubs see Darvish? They last played the Rangers at Rangers Ballpark in May 2010; Texas last played in Wrigley Field (the only appearance by a Rangers team there) in 2002. Depending on how they arrange the interleague schedule after the Astros move to the AL after 2012, perhaps we'll see Darvish pitching against the Cubs in Wrigley in 2013.
Meanwhile, what should the Cubs do next?
There are many here who think the Cubs should do a total rebuild -- in other words, do what the Astros did last year and deal away players who are coveted by other teams. In this scenario, the Cubs would trade Matt Garza for prospects and put a team of mostly kids on the field in 2012.
The problem with this, in my view, is that you can't market a team like that. The Astros lost 106 games, a franchise record, in 2011. While the Cubs kept many season ticket prices flat and reduced bleacher season ticket prices, what do you think putting a team like that on the field would do to single-game sales? Last September, I wrote of my estimate of no-shows for 2011; that total was approximately 700,000.
If the Cubs put a total-rebuild team on the field for 2012, those no-shows could very likely turn into no-buys. Do the Cubs really want to risk total ticket sales dropping to 2.3 million? 700,000 no-buys compared to 2011 would translate into a reduction of revenue of about $30 million -- and that's not to mention that corporate sponsorships might drop, and TV ratings might drop, and...
Well, you get the point. The Cubs are a major market team and they should, as TheoJed have already stated, build a strong organization and also compete (however you want to define that) every year. If you tank one year to try to rebuild, you risk getting into the rut that the Pirates find themselves in, now 20 years after their last winning season. Or the Royals, who last made the playoffs in 1985 and who have had one winning season since 1993.
Been there, done that, from 1947-66, with just one winning season in those 20.
So the Cubs should sign Prince Fielder. Yes, it will cost a lot of money. There is plenty of money coming off the books at the end of 2012 (Ryan Dempster and Carlos Zambrano, $32 million there alone), and Alfonso Soriano's deal ending after 2014 (if they can't dump some of it now). Backload a Fielder deal creatively and the Cubs can certainly afford it.
Will a signing like this make the Cubs contenders in 2012? Probably not, but at least it would make the lineup quite a bit better and would create buzz and sell tickets, in anticipation of contending in 2013. It would, essentially, "swap" Aramis Ramirez for Fielder, since the former Cubs 3B is now playing in Milwaukee. That would make Cubs/Brewers matchups for the next couple of years fascinating to watch, not that this rivalry isn't interesting already.
The rumors about the Cubs and Fielder are almost as bad as all the stuff we heard about Darvish. The Cubs are "pursuing" Fielder -- except new manager Dale Sveum says they haven't talked to him.
Less talk, less rumors, more signing action. That's what I'd like. It's fine to talk about getting Anthony Rizzo, who might turn into a star in two or three years. I'd like to jumpstart the rebuilding. Sign Prince Fielder.
0 recs | 595 comments
This move will create a chain effect.
The Rangers can’t realistically be in the Fielder mix now, after spending on Darvish. Nor will they likely be involved in any Garza talks.
So, the top suitors for Fielder remaining are down to Cubs, Blue Jays, Mariners. And the top trade partners for Garza may be the Blue Jays, Yankees, and who else?
SackMan - December 20, 2011
I could see the Blue Jays in on Fielder.
The question is, does he want to play in Toronto? My guess is no.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
It could make Fielder's decision quite different.
Sign for less years to be in Chicago (appealing), or sign long term to play in Toronto or Seattle (not appealing)?
SackMan - December 20, 2011
No income taxes
That’s a big seller imo.
propheteer - December 20, 2011
Wait, what?
They most certainly do have income taxes in Canada.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
My bad
Sorry, I was thinking of Florida and Texas not having state income taxes.
Canada is worse with higher taxes.
propheteer - December 20, 2011
I'm not sure how it works tax wise...
… for Americans like Fielder who work as athletes for Canadian teams. I know you can get credit on US income taxes for foreign taxes paid, but exactly how that would work in this situation, I have no idea.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
That would be ...
… assuming Fielder did sign with the Blue Jays.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I could be wrong
but i believe for athletes where the games are is where they are credited for having earned that portion of their check. So their taxes are given to the states by th proportion of games played there. No income states are advantages because at least half of their games would be in a no income tax state.
MrPants - December 20, 2011
Yes, that is true, in general.
I don’t know how it works, though, for a US citizen working for a Canadian team, if Fielder were to sign with Toronto.
Al Yellon - December 21, 2011
All U.S. citizens are required by federal law to file federal income taxes regardless of where they reside. Domestic or abroad . I live and work in Germany and pay my taxes to the German system. If I earn $60,000.00 or a year the IRS taxes that.
Luvdemcubbies! - December 22, 2011
However, you get credit for taxes paid to Germany, right?
Al Yellon - December 22, 2011
The State of Washington
has no income tax.
fsw1972 - December 20, 2011
29%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada
SackMan - December 20, 2011
MLB players pay a portion of taxes for where they are playing.
If they are playing in Texas, no taxes paid on salary. However, if they play in New York, they will pay a good chunk of taxes on their salary earned for that day.
ubercubsfan - December 20, 2011
NO SOUP FOR YU!
IowaCubs- - December 20, 2011
Jumbalaya!
daver - December 20, 2011
Come back ONE YEAR !!
blackhawk24 - December 20, 2011
That episode was on at 1:30 AM
Classic comedy! Too bad TV nowadays is crap, crap, and more crap!
cubfanwill - December 20, 2011
More restaurants *cough*Subway*cough* need to be run like the Soup Nazi's Kitchen
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
That's why I prefer......
Jimmy Johns!
Bobudabi - December 20, 2011
Yup... I'm a Jimmy John's guy as well...
Those Subway commercials with the adults using creepy kids voices is just a bowl-full-o-wrong…
Endrick - December 20, 2011
I agree with you about Subway's advertising.
But in general, their sandwiches are a good deal.
I also like Jimmy John’s.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
True,
Subway does have the best deals by far. Though I think other alternatives such as JJ’s have fresher ingredients…….and fewer choices….guess that’s how it works though.
Bobudabi - December 20, 2011
Used to like Jimmy John's
Then there prices skyrocketed
Mitchener - December 20, 2011
Really?
Doesn’t seem so pricy to me.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Not all of us are making SB Nation kind of $$$, though
Danwood - December 20, 2011
When you are a broke college student it is
Mitchener - December 20, 2011
Go get your degree young one - Do it !
Sucks not having money. Been there done that.
Then there’s always Ramon noodle soup.
blackhawk24 - December 21, 2011
Those are hilarious!
Todd…….this is Todd.
Arbusto - December 20, 2011
Oh, Joeby.
Why hast thou forsaken us?
daver - December 20, 2011
No disrespect to Joeby ...
but he was off on the Darvish stuff.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Hey, everyone gets to be wrong at times.
This guy was off on the Darvish thing, too.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I'm just a little amazed at the oracle-like status joeby got very quickly around here.
And, of course, everybody gets to be wrong.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Well, he was spot-on regarding the draft.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
No question.
I just thought he was elevated to supreme authority status without a long track record. Just my opinion.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Speaking only for myself...
…and no offense to Joeby either, but I never really took him all that seriously. It would’ve been a fun thing if he’d been right, though.
daver - December 20, 2011
seriously,
i won last year’s free agent contest and i get nothing, no one asking for my opinion on where free agents will land this year….i’m hurt.
epsilon - December 20, 2011
I guess I'm unclear why that was impressive
I mean, I could have guessed which of our draft picks were going to sign, and I don’t follow it remotely closely.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I think you're giving yourself way too much credit here....
Considering he pegged signings that national and local media were saying would have no chance of signing. He literally got all but one name correct. NO one saw Shoulders signing. Joeby called it.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean he will never be wrong, but you’re definitely discounting the difficulty of predicting draft signings.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Dillon Maples was the big one for me
KLaw, Goldstein, Mayo, etc. All of them said there was next to no chance the Cubs signed him. Combined with previous Cubs draft spending history, the blurb that the Cubs were going “all out” and signing Maples was completely against the grain. It was also 100% correct.
He earned my trust with that one. He still has it, FWIW.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
He may very well have trustworthy sources...
…for the traditional draft. This Darvish thing was clearly a whole ‘nother cup o’ tea.
daver - December 20, 2011
We won't know until we find out what the Cubs bid.
If they bid $50 million, and joeby reported $53, that’s pretty damn close.
As for the winning part, it was obvious that that couldn’t have been known yet. Nobody could have possibly known who won the bid that close the end of the bidding.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
He may have been close.
He said, “I know the Cubs bid was beyond 50mil…” and the winning bid was $51.7 MM. If he was right, the Rangers may well have edged us by an eyelash.
daver - December 20, 2011
Stopped clocks......
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Yeah, I saw that whole thing on Twitter last night.
Pretty funny. And good to see the guy apologized and owned up to his mistake.
daver - December 20, 2011
Agreed. Go after Fielder.
Although I think it’s worth noting that the Cubs really wouldn’t have to backload the deal to sign him. If you total up existing obligations and likely obligations, the Cubs have about $100 million slotted for 2012. If they keep the payroll the same as last year — and they might increase it slightly, given the new amateur signing rules — Fielder could get $25 million in 2012 and the Cubs would still have $9 million or so leftover.
Sign Fielder, sign Maholm and see if you can trade (in order of most desirable to least) Soriano, Zambrano, Byrd, Marmol. Any cost savings there can go into other areas.
elgato - December 20, 2011
And try to get Beltran for 2 years + an option?
Fielder will need protection.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
just curious
What happens in the highly unlikely event that the rangers can’t agree to a contract with Darvish? does the posting process begin again? i agree this can’t be a total rebuild and that the cubs can and should sign fielder. there is no reason the cubs can’t do this save not having the will to do so
nmcubsfan - December 20, 2011 via mobile
If they don't reach a deal
Yu goes back to being a Ham Fighter and the process starts again next season.
Mike Martin - December 20, 2011
If the Rangers don't agree with Darvish...
… they don’t pay the posting fee and he plays in Japan in 2012.
It is possible that MLB and NPB could agree that the Ham Fighters could then take the 2nd-highest bid and negotiate with that team. But that has never been done before.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I assume
that these exclusive rights are not open to trade?
Tat14 - December 20, 2011
Correct.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I have a feeling the Fighters will not allow him to come back
There is no way they are giving up that 50 mil
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
It's not up to the Ham Fighters.
It’s up to Darvish and his agent, whether they want to accept what the Rangers offer. Remember, he personally gets nothing from the posting fee.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
But if you are the Fighters wouldn't you tell him. Don't even think about not signing. Or we are going to ruin you
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
No way.
Japanese culture wouldn’t allow that.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I am not Japanese so I can't comment on their culture.
But 50 million makes people nutso
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
Not there.
I made the mistake once of trying to tip for a dinner in Japan. They chased me down the block to hand me my yen back.
Tat14 - December 20, 2011
Darvish is young
the team would be more than willing to reap the benefits of having him on their team another year and posting him again next season.
This is a win-win situation for Nippon Ham
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
True.
But in general, a high-profile Japanese player like this who gets posted, doesn’t return. I suspect Darvish and the Rangers will come to an agreement.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I do too, I'm just saying I don't think the NPB is going to kidnap the dude's family and hold them at gunpoint
if the contract negotiations stall
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Well that is a bit of over reaction but they could pressure him to come to a deal by questioning his honor
Isn’t that a Japanese thing to do?
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what Japanese honor means.
The honorable thing to do is NOT pressure him.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Well he'll surely LOVE joining the MLBPA then.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
I'm quite sure the honour of the Japanese
is the reciprocal of any ‘organization’ like that. In fact I’m sure of it because I have many Japanese colleagues. In no uncertain terms do they tell me – and of course very politely – how certain ‘things’ are not done that way in Japan.
I would imagine I’m not the only one who saw those filmstrips and movies in grammar school that illustrates the comparison between workers in an American factory and a Japanese factory.
blackhawk24 - December 20, 2011
Something like this?
EcoGeek - December 20, 2011
I knew should have just stuck with saying I know nothing of Japanese culture
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
Geez, is the NPB or the Yakuza?
daver - December 20, 2011
Money makes people weird
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
That's true -- the stakes are really high.
daver - December 20, 2011
Let's just be clear here:
I’m assuming you mean this sort of contract ($75M + $52M = $122M) would be a good idea? Is that right?
You’re willing to say that a guy that’s never played an iota of baseball at the MLB level is worth, oh, I dunno, the 20th biggest contract in the history of the sport? Am I reading this correctly?
Dan
dtpollitt - December 20, 2011
Yes.
I think Darvish is that good. You disagree. We’ll find out, presuming he does sign with Texas.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
It's important to pay for performance you expect, not performance that's already happened,
but I think this is too big of a risk considering his comparables. And given the Cubs handcuffing of contracts we’ve had over the last decade (and for a few more years), I don’t see this as a sensible option.
dtpollitt - December 20, 2011
Your last sentence said it all.
Darvish could very well have ended up extending Soriano-style obligations (read that: bad obligations) for a few more seasons.
I’m very glad we didn’t outbid Texas.
elgato - December 20, 2011
That makes three
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
And a fourth
Fat Punk Kicker - December 20, 2011
Number Five...is alive!
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Six
As in nix….
krummy12 - December 20, 2011
Laynce or Jayson?
daver - December 20, 2011
If they can hit, both....if they can't, neither.
krummy12 - December 20, 2011
As I've said before...
I’m more than happy to let another organization prove that one of these Japanese guys is worth the load of cash that you have to pay.
JG23 - December 20, 2011
Darvish is an incredibly high risk signing
Roughly 25 mil per year for 5 years for a guy that has never pitching in the MLB.
I understand you think he might be worth it, but I don’t think that’s a gamble a team like the Cubs can take. The Rangers, who would be good even without him and are flush with cash, are in a much better position to take that gamble. If he is as good as you expect him to be, it’s probably enough to put them over the top. If he’s not, they are still a potential playoff team and could get lucky.
For the Cubs, if he is as good as you expect him to be, they’d still need a lot more things to go right to be any kind of contender. If he’s not, they are still in the basement of the division AND they won’t have money to make the team better.
He could be great, it’s just not a gamble a team in the Cubs’ position can afford to take, imo. Prince Fielder carries risk, but on a 4-6 or 7 year deal the risk isn’t huge. We know he is going to be a huge part of the rebuilding. That’s the direction I would go.
I still think if they aren’t going to sign Fielder, then they really aren’t going to be competitive anytime soon. In that case they are in a true, ground-up rebuilding. If that’s the case, they should be selling off every veteran they can, in particular Garza since he would really jumpstart the rebuilding process.
tomas21 - December 20, 2011
This.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Strongly disagree.
Because if one makes the assumption that he will be as good as advertised, he’d be on the team for 5 years. It might not make the Cubs contenders in 2012, but he would still be around as Theo rebuilds.
I certainly understand the detractors questioning his potential though.
Kansas25 - December 20, 2011
We were talking about Darvish, not Fielder.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I was also.
I’m saying if he is as good as advertised (“if he is as good as you expect him to be” from the line above), then he is well worth the investment, because a five year deal (as is rumored) would keep him around while the Cubs continued to build. By year 3/4 of that deal, he could be a vital piece to a contender.
Questioning his transition to the MLB is a fine complaint and reason enough not to sign him for that money. But I don’t believe that we should pass up young talent (Cespedes, Fielder, Darvish) just because we won’t be good in 2012/13. If you can lock up young talent, you do it and build to peak in the contract’s later years.
Kansas25 - December 20, 2011
And he would be 29 years old and smack in his prime then too. However, I can certainly understand reluctance to pay that much for what is a gamble.
Archie - December 20, 2011
Good points one and all...
…though I’m starting to think other teams just aren’t going to give up enough to warrant trading Garza.
daver - December 20, 2011
Flip a coin
I’m going with dtpollitt; on 2 fronts. 1. It’s a boatload of money on a guy that may or may not work. 2. Lets just say he does “work”, how has that money spent affected potential future expenditures. For a reference on that concern, please see: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2668465
blackhawk24 - December 20, 2011
Funny how the ONE player the Cubs signed in the top twenty is also the worst player
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
Vernon Wells
is pretty close.
Archie - December 20, 2011
I don't think so at all
Wells is a far better player than Soriano, and I like Soriano.
jerry morales rules - December 20, 2011
...and Wells is also horrible.
jameslcrockett - December 20, 2011
Wells made Soriano look like an all-star last year....
His line was .218/.248/.412/.660 for the low price of 26.6 million. I’ll take Soriano every day of the week.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
If you expand the sample size just a bit
you’ll see that their three year averages are pretty close. Plus, Wells can still play a very good defense. Neither are good, but I would take Wells any day straight up.
jerry morales rules - December 20, 2011
Let's be honest, I've got no horse in this race.
I can’t imagine wanting either, and looking at that extra 5-8 million a year sitting on wells contract right now is the only difference maker for me.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
If all you could do is swap horrendous...
for putrid, then you’d do better just to cut horrendous yourself… or scratch your own eyes out. Congratulations for discovering a way to make a sunk cost sunker.
jameslcrockett - December 21, 2011
Rec'd for coining term "sunker."
daver - December 21, 2011
You say potato...
I say butchering the english language. But that’s my business, and business is good.
jameslcrockett - December 21, 2011
cubs rebuilding
good article but the problem is should we worry about marketing or getting rid of jim hendry’s leftovers and start fresh? i am running out of years at 60 but still would rather rebuild from scratch.
notcubbiewubbie - December 20, 2011
As I wrote
… if you do that, you risk being bad for a long time. Sure, rebuilds can work — but do you risk a 25% drop in ticket sales, with the drop in revenue that would cause? That could cause a downward spiral that would be very difficult to get out of.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
The Cubs sucking for twenty years from the end of WWII to the mid-sixties was the result of many
things including slowness by the Cubs to sign African American and Latin players, just general horrid drafting into a rotten minor league system etc. So if you think the Epstoyer regime is incompetent enough to begin a run like that, I’m not sure why you for their hiring in the first place.
the nth - December 20, 2011
All of those things are true.
All I’m saying is that IF TheoJed do a total teardown this year and put a 2011 Astros type team on the field, they could inadvertently cause a decline in revenue that could hurt the team for many years to come.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
What percentage is ticket sales relative to a team's entire revenue?
I don’t have any stats or figures in front of me, but it seems that broadcast deals are the main source of incoming cash. So if ticket sales were to decline, how much of dip in total revenue would that represent (approximately)?
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
It depends on the team.
The Cubs don’t have the huge TV deals that the Yankees, Rangers and now the Angels do.
That’s one reason ticket prices are so high.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I'd love to spend time finding those actual figures for the Cubs
so I could intelligently argue in favor of/against burning down the mission and going with a total youth movement.
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
Well, here's an estimate.
The Cubs sold 3 million tickets in 2011. The average price of a Cubs ticket was approximately $52, at face value. That would mean gross ticket revenues were approximately $156 million.
Now, the Cubs did sell a lot of tickets last year at discounted prices, so that estimate is probably too high. I estimated they had 700,000 no-shows last year. If those turn into no-buys, you’ve cut at least $30 million of revenue out.
Now take that and lower TV ratings and lower corporate sponsor dollars and you see the problem.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Does a one year downturn really mean decades of noncompetition?
Playing devil’s advocate here.
This is not a marginal market, this is the third largest city in the United States. I doubt a one or two year churn in the season ticket list is going to seriously affect the company’s long term revenue, especially given the high visibility and huge marketing power of the franchise nationwide.
NobodySpecial - December 20, 2011
I tend to agree with you
I could envsion a greater dropoff if Hendry and Quade were still around trying to sort out the mess that they have been in the last 3 years, But, with Theo on board and generally a positive attiude amongst Cub Nation, a “rebuilding” year or so wouldn’t necesarrily kill the cash cow for half a decade.
Based on how the economy is in 2012 and 2013, I think that if the Cubs field a competetive team next year, some of the no-shows will return., IMHO.
BigJohnAZ - December 20, 2011
It may when the people who own the team borrowed a lot of money to buy it
Revenues are contingent. Debt service is permanent.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Aw, c'mon...
…60 is the new 40.
daver - December 20, 2011
Does that mean 42 is the new 22
My wife would like that
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
I hope so.
That’s my age, too!
daver - December 20, 2011
BFF!
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
good answer
love lewis black now thats funny.
notcubbiewubbie - December 20, 2011
Problem with starting over from scratch is the system is BARREN
We’d literally have to spend 7 years of being awful just to hope the system becomes productive. Coupled with the new CBA that prohibits us from overspending on the draft.
The only reliable way to be competitive is to splurge on free agency. We just need to do it intelligently and non-Hendry-esque.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
The system is not great, but it's hardly barren.
It’s a system of depth with little to no star power. There is actually quite a lot of talent in the low minors, but they are at least 2-5 years from producing for the Cubs. To claim that it would take 7+ years of being awful to see any benefits shows a complete lack of understanding of our system.
Also, no one is advocating building only through the system – their argument is likely that it makes sense to spend on free agents at a time when those players with potential are closer to making an impact (2012, 2013, etc).
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Couple of things
The system is barren. The “depth” that you are so high on is basically fungible parts. Middle relievers, 4th and 5th outfielders, middle relievers.
Other than Brett Jackson there isn’t a single projecting MLB starter who has played above SS ball last year.
Secondly, you have to sign impact guys when the impact guys are available. Very seldom does an impact 27 year old bat at a position of HUGE need become available for the taking. When they become available you need to make an honest effort to grab them if you are a big market club.
Waiting until you “decide to compete” in 2013 is how you end up overpaying for whatever is on the market that particular offseason (Soriano,Marquis,Fukudome,Bradley).
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Agreed....completely
Minor league depth is OK if star quality is in front of it. Without it, in this case, minor league depth is worth little.
I’ve said it before, Theo and company will be on their second contracts if they rely solely on amateur talent. That’s a very, very risky strategy. Signings like Fielder are required. Quite honestly, the Cubs can’t afford not to make those types of signings.
krummy12 - December 20, 2011
Huh?
Only BJax is a starter in the bigs above SS ball? I could see where you would question McNutt, as I tend to think he’s a reliever as well. But you don’t think Szczur is anything but a 4th OFer? Are you KLaw? Ha’s OF defense alone is probably good enough to give him league average production. Castillo could still be a starting C in the bigs. There are plenty of BOR starters like Rusin/Whitenack/Rhee/Struck.
As bdlugz said, definately not star-studded at the top, but it will provide at least a few MLB starters for cheap.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
How many MLB starters can you name with a 2.7 BB rate in A ball?
I doubt that Szczur is ever anything more than a 4th/5th of type. He had an atrocious walk rate in Daytona. He doesn’t hit for power.
If he was in another organization nobody here would think anything at all about him.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Considering he's highly thought of in the prospect community
I highly doubt that “nobody here would think anything of him”
The walk rate upon the promotion is a little concerning, but you can’t put too much weight on 182 PA’s in High A, when he walked at a 7% clip in almost 120 more PA’s in Low A. It’ll be interesting to see what Szczur can do this year, after getting the first winter off in his professional career.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
His love from the prospect community is 100% due to Hendry giving him that ridiculous contract.
He absolutely doesn’t seem like a Thoyer type of prospect. I wouldn’t be shocked to see him sent off as compensation somewhere.
Guy who doesn’t get on base and doesn’t have power, who is an outfielder and has had some injury issues.
If not for Hendry’s fetish for football players, Szczur wouldn’t even register as a prospect.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
So this:
must be why he’s been named to a handful of top 100 prospect lists. All those evaluators simply owe Hendry a favor.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
That has to be it
It couldn’t be his tools or anything.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
Guys who get huge bonuses ALWAYS end up on initial prospect lists
Either that or people are REALLY enamored with .694 A Ball OPS’s from 22 year old Outfielders in the scouting community?
aaronb - December 20, 2011
You see what you want to see.
The age is relative… since this was his first year EVER playing only baseball. He didn’t play well in Daytona. He did in Peoria.
As for the bonus part, he wasn’t on year end top 100 prospect lists in 2010, the year he was drafted. As the 2011 season developed, he climbed onto said lists. So it had zippo to do with the bonus.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
He didn't get that huge Bonus until after 2010
After he gave up football and Hendry doled out that Quasi-Major league contract that he started to get hype from the “tools lovers”.
He has no more business in the 100 top prospects sheets than Hayden Simpson, Mark Pawelek, Ryan Harvey or Jeff Samjay had in those same rankings.
If he actually…..you know…….produces something on the field OTHER than hype. Then I will change my mind.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
You're incorrect on your timeline but, whatever.
And this is just silly:
While they are certainly miles from perfect… I’ll take the professional evaluators projection over yours.
And this is producing… particularly for a guy who was previously a part-time baseball player in a weak college baseball league playing his first full season of day-in-day-out baseball.
Of course he’s more tools than “production” at this point. Nobody really debates that. But you could say the exact same thing for plenty of prospects who the Cubs would be lucky to have.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
How am I incorrect with my timeline?
He signed that contract in January of THIS year.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110118&content_id=16458346&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Most of the updated prospect
lists with his name on it popped up mid-season… as he was having success in Peoria.
Not to mention that since the Commissioner’s office challenged the original contract, everyone knew last fall that he would be signing a bigger bonus contract with a spot on the 40 man roster. The fact that it was signed in January was little more than paper work.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
So his production at Peoria put him
Behind Greg Rohan and Richard Jones and directly in front of Rubi Silva?
AWESOME!!!!!!
Did you notice the 100 Point OPS drop in Daytona?
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Not uncommon, actually
FSL is an extremely heavy pitcher’s league.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
The original point was
That other than BJax, there isn’t anyone above SS ball that looks to be at least an average MLB Starter.
I stand by my opinion.
I don’t think that a 22 year old who put up a .790 and .690 OPS in A ball is what you would call an “Average or better MLB starter”
Maybe he develops plate discipline and power out of nowhere and becomes a .900 OPSer?
Maybe I grow a foot and sign an NBA contract?
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Or he turns into a faster Shane Victorino.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Shane Victorino always controlled the strike zone
Matt Szczur has NEVER controlled the strike zone.
Better comp for Szczur is Jerome Walton at BEST and more likely Tony Campana.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Now I'm convinced
This IS KLaw.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
That would be news
to Victorino’s minor league stats.
Better than Szczur, but not exactly “always controlling the strike zone”.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Based on that "logic"
then guys like Jason Dubois and the Hoff would be top prospects. Production isn’t a straight predictor of future success.
When I was in high school, we got a new minor league team in my area. It started with the O’s but shifted to be a Marlins low A spot in the Midwest League.
There was a really raw SS we saw play. Plenty of tools, but looked horrendously overmatched at times.
He had an OPS of .500…… yes, .500 in a full season. Got promoted anyway. You may have heard of him. He made 4 all-star teams, won a couple of gold gloves, and was World Series MVP.
You may have heard of him. But I guess the Marlins probably should have given up on him after that stellar .500 OPS.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Apples and freaking watermelons
Age 22
Matt Szczur .694 OPS in A ball
Edgar Renteria 4th year as a Starter in MLB baseball.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Szczur played college football and college baseball.
Renteria was signed as a teenager. Not even close to being comparable, not to mention they play different positions.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
So its a fair comp?
To say because Renteria struggled AS A 16 YEAR OLD IN PRO BASEBALL, that its reasonable for Szczur to stuggle as a 22 year old?
I’m not saying the kid will never have ANY use.
I’m just saying I HIGHLY doubt he will ever be an average regular or better.
4th or 5th outfielder at best. Hopefully a “Sell High” candidate for Thoyer.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
The comp wasn't about age it was about your means of logic.
You seem to be opposed to rating prospects based on tools, even though that happens all the time.
And Renteria was one example that came quickly to mind because I saw him play. I’d imagine we could find more than a few major leaguers who had struggled less in their first taste of high A ball during their first full baseball season.
You don’t think Szczur can develop into much of anything. That’s fine, and your opinion. But the bulk of the baseball community who rates prospects would seem to disagree with your assessment.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Tools are all well and good
But without developing them into something that is useful on a baseball diamond. They are worthless.
Hopefully the Thoyer regime can move on from the Hendry/McFail era of toolsy busts and can find some productive baseball players.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
So...
Szczur is likely to be a “toolsy bust” since he didn’t OPS as highly as you wanted in his first full season of playing baseball. Got it.
I sure hope Theo and Jed have a different perspective.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
I'm sure Theo and Jed are clamoring
To fill the outfield with singles hitters with 2.7 Walk rates!!!!!
Maybe we can plug him in at First Base instead of getting Fielder?
aaronb - December 20, 2011
I'm sure
Theo and Jed are smart enough to make that call as to how they see Szczur developing.
Besides, if he’s as useless as you’re projecting (since, apparently 22 is the magic age at which nobody ever gets any better in the minor leagues)…. how are they going to use him as a “trade chip”? Just hold onto him until Hendry gets another GM job?
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
I'm with you, fsuapollo.
Szczur also focused mainly on football in college, like Samardzija did.
Now that he’s exclusively playing baseball, I expect him to improve rapidly.
And next time the Cubs draft a former college football player, please take one whose name is easier to type.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Make them buy a vowel with their bonus money.....
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Worked out well with Samardzija, huh?
jameslcrockett - December 20, 2011
Hendry gave up too much
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Of course a position on a "top prospect" list will get you a latte at Starbucks
Provided you also have $4……
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Another reason the Cubs can't totally rebuild is that they have almost nothing anyone wants.
Hard to go young when no one wants your older guys.
the nth - December 20, 2011
That's a good point.
elgato - December 20, 2011
You can wait for the older guys' contracts to expire
or simply cut them.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Of course.
But the point is that you’re not going to get much back in trades for them that will help the rebuild.
elgato - December 20, 2011
True, but Theo has said he wants to build from within
which to me means that he’s going to give our OWN youngsters a real shot to prove whether they belong or not. As well as improve how we draft.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Possible.
But I think nth’s point stands anyway.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I'm sure Theo would like to give every youngster a shot.
If they come through it’s a much cheaper alternative. But I’m sure he also knows that Hendry left the cupboard pretty bare. I’m afraid he also knows that more will be in the “not belonging” camp than the “belongs” camp. But you have to fill out rosters with someone so the decent players at least have teams to play on.
the nth - December 20, 2011
But, is it really true?
-These guys could all step into top level teams and be starters or key contributors
Garza
Marshall
Soto
Castro
Marmol
Byrd
-These guys would certainly have value as cheap servicable players
Barney
Wells
I am not looking at this team through rosey glasses. There is a distinct lack of star power with the possible exceptions of Castro and Garza, but even there Castro is more prospect than true star and Garza is no better than a second tier pitcher.
However, to paint this club, at the Major League level, as being completely devoid of talent or assets is silly.
WGNstatic - December 20, 2011
It depends on how you define 'going young'.
Trading Castro, Garza, Barney, Soto and (I guess) Wells might actually make you older — because the team might need for spare parts players to fill gaps while guys in the system get ready. Of the four above, the only one who would seem to have a decent replacement in the minors is Soto.
That leaves Marshall (who is definitely tradable), Marmol (whose value is pretty low and who is due for big raises in 2012 and 2013), Byrd (who was hurt and mediocre in 2012).
elgato - December 20, 2011
Byrd was already hurt and mediocre in 2012? Damn, life is hard when you know that bad fortune awaits.
I guess that ignorance IS bliss.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Sorry.
I get my wires crossed with dates at the end of years.
elgato - December 21, 2011
What counts as second tier these days?
Would Garza have to have a fWAR of over 6 instead of 5?
IowaCubs- - December 20, 2011
Thank you.....
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
You're not going to fill a roster with youngsters on the haul from that group.
And I’m guessing Castro is staying unless someone blows away the Cubs with an offer. Garza is the only one on the list who might bring a top-level prospect. Marmol might have a year ago but his value will have to be rebuilt from the ashes of last season. I’m sure there’s interest in Marshall but it’s not realistic to expect a ton in return for a bullpen guy. A guy like Marlon Byrd might be a decent serviceable player, but I can’t imagine too many teams coveting him. No reason to trade Barney or Wells since you’d probably be getting another Barney or Wells back.
My point wasn’t that the Cubs all suck, it’s that what you get for them in return will not fuel a youth movement.
the nth - December 20, 2011
That's 8 players...
of which wouldn’t have an every day impact on a team. Thank you for making our case even stronger. Better than the Astros is not the standard I want for the Cubs.
jameslcrockett - December 20, 2011
*4
jameslcrockett - December 20, 2011
Also hard to go young when the upper levels of your minor league system aren't very good.....
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
I think yes
Especially if it’s for a five-year contract, as has been suggested in the press. Beyond that, I think Fielder is too big an injury risk.
fridrikrinngamli - December 20, 2011
I think you could creatively have a deal...
… with options beyond five years. If he’s still healthy and productive then, there wouldn’t be any reason not to keep him.
If it appears he’s beginning to decline at that time, then you cut ties.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Agreed.
You have to keep options open, but don’t get into a “match Pujols’s contract” trap.
fridrikrinngamli - December 20, 2011
and by that time you gotta hope/figure Vogelbach or Shoulders is ready.
if they come along like we all hope which of course is a huge if
MDavis - December 20, 2011
6 years/ $160M with a couple of option years.
Cubs control the age risk. Fielder gets to say he is paid more than Pujols and got a contract that could be worth more than $200M.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
One issue with this is Scott Boras
mikeschieve - December 20, 2011
Exactly
and offering a 5 year deal will not even get a call back from Boras.
Grockcubs - December 20, 2011
I've said before I don't the Cubs are looking to spend as much money as some of you think
I’m going to stick to that. I think the Cubs are in the kind of full on rebuild mode that will take a few years. They may go after the SD first baseman, but I don’t think they are going to make a serious run at Fielder.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Agreed.
Our GM is doing what he said he would, whether you agree with his methods or not. Maybe his definition of the word ‘compete’ differs significantly from most.
Edgewood - December 20, 2011
This is the same guy who went all in for Adrian Gonzalez when he got a shot at him
Epstein will spend money the get the guy he needs for the team. And given how weak the Cubs’ system is at 1B, they need Fielder.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
at the right price,
for the right number of years.
timh815 - December 20, 2011
I'm not certain he's going to be ALLOWED to spend the money
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I can't imagine he'd have come here if he was THAT restricted on his spending.
What would be the point? I’m not saying I expect massive FA contracts dished out, but if Ricketts talked Theo into the Cubs with a $10 million spending limit in 2011 offseason, we’ve got a real business person on our hands!
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
You think Theo only comes here if he's told he has a blank check?
Theo had to know there was going to be some salary constraints. I think that’s one of the reasons they’ve been stressing “build from within”
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
There is a big difference between
“We’re cutting salary 15-20% from last year” and “we’re not looking to increase payroll from previous years, but do what you can within that limit.”
Nothing I mentioned says anything about a blank check, or even implies it.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Joe Saunders would be a good start, but PF is the big ticket.
LH hammer in the lineup, and wildly popular.
Prince Fielder’s value will extend well beyond his production – It would be a marketing bonanza for the Cubs. And, with an eye towards next year’s free agent class, and those that follow, other good players will want to play with Prince. Fielder is someone you can build a team around.
scottsdalecubs - December 20, 2011
Exactly.
Sign him and Paul Maholm, and you could have a competitive team in 2012.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Both?
What happens to Wells and Cashner? Or do you think the Cubs would stash Saunders in Iowa?
daver - December 20, 2011
Al's a proponent of Cashner in the pen.
He could be right on that.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the Cubs trade Marmol, have a closer derby (not closer by committee) in 2012 and use the savings from Marmol to sign Saunders and Maholm.
This is assuming the Cubs get Fielder.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I also think Cashner should just be left in the pen
Some guys just aren’t durable enough to start. I’d rather get Carlos Marmol level of value out of Cashner than Angel Guzman production out of him.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Stop the madness.
This “durability” question is all myth.
He’s had one injury. ONE.
He’s been a starter every year of his baseball life except his senior year at TCU and his promotion to the Cubs’ pen.
Barring a medical diagnosis that would be contrary, there’s simply no viable reason to NOT try him in the rotation.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Not true
23 2/3 IP as a Freshman
No IP count but a 9-3 record as a Sophmore
54.1 IP his last year at TCU.
Never more than 110 innings at ANY level of pro ball.
http://gofrogs.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/cashner_andrew00.html
aaronb - December 20, 2011
And I'm not saying
he’s ready to throw 180-200 innings.
But he’s been a starter the bulk of his career. Not going over 110 innings hasn’t been because of durability.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
He's 25 years old
AT what point do you ramp those innings up for him to be a starter? Most PAP data seems to point at 20 to 30 innings Max per year as a legitimate ramp up.
Even if we ignore the 15 innings he pitched last year and look at the 110 he put up in 2010. Best case to keep the kid healthy would be
140 in 2012
170 in 2013
200 in 2014
So the best case is that he is fully ready to be a full time starter right at the same time he is ready to leave as a free agent.
If the plan was to make him a starter then needed to commit to that strategy on day one. Not waste 2 years of MLB service time yo-yo-ing the kid back and forth to the pen.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
He was being groomed as a starter. Always.
Then Hendry made the mistake to bring him up to shore up the pen in a doomed attempt to “compete”.
Then he earned a SP spot out of 2011 ST and got hurt in that first start. He came back in the pen because there wasn’t enough time to get him built back up to start a game or two in September.
You start him as a SP in 2012. Absolutely no question. If he doesn’t show progress, you revisit the discussion.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Agreed totally.
This was your fifth spot/injury fillins last year:
Lopez 6-5 (with a 4.50 ERA, which still boggles my mind)
Ortiz 0-2
Davis 1-7
Coleman 3-9
Russell 0-5
Cashner outperforms all of them handily this year. To NOT have him as a starter is borderline insane.
NobodySpecial - December 20, 2011
Oh, that's right.
I just need clearer evidence that Cashner can’t endure as a starter before I give up on him in that role. There’s just too much value to be had. And I’d be open to trading Marmol at this point, too. Love the guy, but a closer who can’t command the strike zone to his extent is, unfortunately, expendable.
daver - December 20, 2011
Agreed.
Of all the letdowns since 2008, there are two things that I am really tired of.
Zambrano tantrums.
Marmol ninth innings.
They don’t always happen. But the fact that they could gives me agita.
Tat14 - December 20, 2011
Eh ...
Marmol was bad in 2011. I bet if he’s used more sparingly in 2012, he’ll get back to 2010 Marmol, which was quite good.
elgato - December 20, 2011
He has been good.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he has simply flopped after a promising 2010.
Define “sparingly”. By definition, he needs to be ready for a total of 3 outs per game.
Tat14 - December 20, 2011
He didn't have a pitching coach which didn't help any
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
Thing is...
…Marmol actually pitched more innings in 2010 than he did in 2011. Granted, it wasn’t much: 77.2 to 74.0, but still. And his walk rate was actually worse in 2010. He just had such a literally record-setting K rate that year, his value went through the roof.
In any case, I’d guess the Cubs won’t have any choice but to use Marmol in 2012 because he’s owed a relatively high amount of money and coming off a pretty shaky year. If our bullpen does shape up to be good, it could help Carlos a lot because Sveum can restrict him to just the ninth inning and, we hope, have some dependable options for backing him up.
daver - December 20, 2011
Marmol pitched almost exactly as much in 2011 as in 2010.
332 batters faced in 2010, 327 in 2011.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
True, like I said...
…it wasn’t that different. But he wasn’t used any more sparingly in 2010 than he was in 2011.
daver - December 20, 2011
innings and batters faced maybe similiar
but what about consecutive games played and consecutive games he wasnt used?
sitting on the bench you get rusty, going 15 games in a row you get tired. is there data for that?
epsilon - December 20, 2011
Yeah, there is.
You can just look at his gamelogs on Baseball-Reference.
daver - December 20, 2011
Cumulative wear and tear, I'd say.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I'd be very much in favor of trading Marmol and making Cashner the closer.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
It's been a while since this happened, but I agree with you on this
Though I’d like to see what Cashner can do as a starter.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I suppose it's possible that Cashner could become that TOR starter everyone thinks he can.
But after last year, I just think he — and the team — would be better served in my scenario.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
If his injury had been because of overuse, I'd agree with you.
Because it clearly wasn’t I’m still in the “make Cashner a starter” camp
getting rid of Marmol and making Cashner the closer would be a plan B I could live with.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Marmol does have trade value, I think
… even with that backloaded contact, given what Papelbon got in free agency.
Some team could say, “we can fix that”, in relation to Marmol. They’re probably wrong, but someone could say that.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I wonder if he really does have any value.
Because Theo/Jed seems smart enough to realize they need to move him if they can. And they haven’t yet.
It’s possible the scouting report has gotten out enough that teams are willing to see if Marmol can get anywhere near consistent before they come calling
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Possible.
Although, it’s pretty early in the offseason. TheoJed have been pretty good about not telegraphing their moves.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
It's not really that early anymore
We’re what? Two months from spring training? I’m not saying it won’t happen, but if Marmol was going to get dealt before the season started, I would have wagered it would have been at the winter meetings.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Maybe.
But other deals get made later. Still could happen.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Of course it COULD happen
I’m saying I don’t think it’s likely before the trade deadline
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Why?
Because he didn’t come back when the Cubs historically underperforming medical staff predicted he would (the Cubs’ recent history is literally littered with guys who spent far more time on the DL than the initial projection).
You just don’t take an arm like Cashner’s (who has been a starter virtually his entire career) and banish him to the pen because of one injury.
If he’s hurt again this year and/or ineffective as a SP, then you can start to have a different conversation. But it is at least one season too soon to move him to the pen, particularly given the lack of talent in the Cub rotation.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
IMO, this wouldn't be "banishing".
Trading Marmol and making Cashner the closer would improve the team.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
See, now you've gone to where I can safely disagree with you again
I’m not sure it would improve it MORE than if Cashner was starting every five days. Starting pitching is still a massive black hole on this team right now.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Which is why they should have gotten Darvish!
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Darvish would have, in essence ...
cost $125 million-plus for five years. You really think he’s that good?
elgato - December 20, 2011
I do, yes.
We’ll see what the total cost is once the Rangers sign him. It might not be quite that high.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
even if it's not quite that high...
he’ll most likely be in the top 20 most expensive players of MLB…and that’s kinda silly to me.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Yeah, that's how Hendry thought
and it’s why we’re in this position
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
That's highly debatable.
And SP have more value than all but the elite closers.
So unless you think/no that Cashner would turn into mini-Mo, it doesn’t make the team better.
Particularly when we’re talking about a closer on a sub .500 team. Who closes just doesn’t matter.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
No
Not until there’s a better idea that Cashner cant’ be a starter. I think you have to exhaust that possibility first.l There is too much value in a starting pitcher to give up on that now. That and the Cubs have Carpenter.
jerry morales rules - December 20, 2011
I don't think the Cubs have a problem with excess starters....
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Not with the lineup we have right now we wouldn't be
Unless by competitive you mean “might win 81 games”
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I said, IF they sign Fielder.
Now that isn’t “the lineup we have right now”, is it?
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
You said "Him"
And since the post you were responding to started out advocating signing Saunders, I assumed that’s who you meant by “him”
If you’re not going to be specific, then don’t be snarky when someone misunderstands.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Sorry for the confusion.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I'm also not convinced Prince's bat is enough to make us a contender offensively
We literally have NO other power bats right now. Unless Ian Stewart improves immensely.
I could see quite a few pitchers pitching around Fielder and taking on whoever is behind him on a remarkably consistent basis.
I think this may be one reason the Cubs aren’t going after Fielder guns a blazing.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
So then he walks 150 times.
Pretty good to have someone one base that many times.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
So the rest of our crap lineup can ground into a double play or strand him?
Carlos Pena walked a ton last year, AND had Aramis Ramirez batting behind him and our offense was still BAAAAAAAAD.
I don’t think Prince magically turns that around. I don’t think he makes us a contender in 2012. As Theo/Jed you have to weigh how long it will take to put other pieces around him that WILL make us contenders and then weigh whether its worth signing him at all. I think in the end they’re going to land on the side of “no.”
I should point out I hope I’m wrong on that, as I would like Prince to be a Cub VERY badly, but not for 8, 9 or 10 years
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I wouldn't want an 8, 9 or 10 year deal, either.
Five, six max. If you go beyond that, you have to make them option years.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Scott Boras might have something to say about that.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Sure.
But unlike the past, I don’t think Boras has teams bidding against themselves for his clients. If so, Fielder would already have signed with someone.
Good as he is, it could be a seller’s market for him.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
With Rizzo and Trumbo/Morales now on the market
It’s trending in the buyer’s favor.
EcoGeek - December 20, 2011
I am continually amazed at the level of accuracy of prognostication on this board.
NobodySpecial - December 20, 2011
Fielder's a must, IMO.
Kansas25 - December 20, 2011
100 percent in agreement, Al
Signing Fielder makes far too much sense.
And your point about “rebuilding” is spot on. I’m not sure why some fans like to think the Cubs are some destitute franchise in some small city. We can walk and chew gum at the same time in Chicago.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Bruce, no one thinks the Cubs are 'some destitute franchise in some small city.'
There’s just disagreement over spending on stopgaps that might get you to .500 in 2012 and investing in the system.
elgato - December 20, 2011
And there's disagreement ...
over whether Fielder/Darvish will be worth a big contract when the team is going to be bad around them for a few years.
You know my feelings on Fielder. But don’t invent strawmen here.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I know your feelings on it, eg, and I think we agree on that
but I also don’t think I’m constructing a strawman here. Maybe I’m just being a bit more blunt and/or creative about describing it. :)
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
You never do, and you almost always are.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
It must be tough
being a bitter cuss like yourself.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
OK, this is what gets people pissed at you.
Stop doing this!
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
But it's OK for nunya
to insult me. Got it.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
I think Al objected to the name calling.
elgato - December 20, 2011
If I'm attacked,
I attack back. I just get to the point a lot more quickly. :)
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Be Big Bruce!
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
Pointing out that you
frequently construct strawman arguments isn’t an insult… it’s an observation.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Beat me to it
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Other than they aren't strawman arguments,
you might have a point.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Ok, so find one person who is claiming this is a destitute team in a small city
Find one person who has said that.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
He has a point.
Perhaps without realizing it, you’re attributing a lot to a little. Saying the Cubs should consider trading Garza if they can’t get Fielder isn’t the same as saying we’re the new version of the Expos.
It’s saying that if we can’t be sort of competitive, we shouldn’t worry too much about 68 versus 73 losses.
elgato - December 20, 2011
They have points
I don’t. Check.
It’s ridiculous if a franchise doesn’t even try to win. That’s even worse if it’s in one of the biggest markets in MLB.
Loveable losers, my tail.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
You need to step back ...
and think about this some more. Respectfully, you’re casting things in absolutes when there are definite grey areas.
elgato - December 20, 2011
A leopard can't change his spots El
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Yep
That applies to a lot of people here, eg.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
I'm curious what this even means beyond your usual
“I know you are but what am I” response
Most everyone else IS talking in grey areas.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
...
Emelie - December 20, 2011
Oh man, that's funny.
daver - December 20, 2011
Maybe.
But it applies to you on this point. I know you halfway respect my opinion. So I’ll say this again:
Just because some BCBers don’t want the Cubs to spend a lot on Fielder (or anyone else) in 2012 doesn’t mean they’re claiming or acting like the Cubs are a poor team in a destitute city.
They might simply think the players involved are too expensive relative to how good they’d make the team.
elgato - December 20, 2011
And I disagree with that
And I’ll leave it at that.
And I respect your opinion much more than halfway.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
And you're welcome to disagree on
the approach to financial allocation.
But the misrepresentations you make, as elgato described, are when you step in it.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Understood
but I don’t think it’s a misrepresentation.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
How? How do you think
you’ve accurately translated sentiments like this: “the Cubs are too far away and should focus resources on building from within” or “the Cubs would be better served spending money on some of the available young Cuban talent” …….. and you come up with:
Those aren’t equivalent in any way, shape, or form. In other words… a misrepresentation.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
+1
Vermont Cubs Fan - December 21, 2011
We did that last year.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
Rec'd
He just doesn’t want to get it.
blackhawk24 - December 21, 2011
Rec'd
Pointing out the obvious. Maybe that’ll do it.
blackhawk24 - December 21, 2011
But Fielder isn't a stopgap
He is an in-his-prime slugger who should have a good run of at least 5-6 years ahead of him.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
If I may speak
for the fanbase you like to characterize as somewhere between mouthbreathers and wannabe GMs in their mother’s basement…
I would imagine most here would be in favor of signing Fielder. If we got Fielder, I’d imagine that many/most here would be in favor ok keeping Garza short of getting bowled over by an overwhelming package of future potential stars.
But if we can’t get Fielder? Then we aren’t going to be good for a few years. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that we lost our two middle of the order hitters and replaced them with little production. In that case, I and the rest of the people you disparage here would probably prefer to trade Garza and have a shorter window until the Cubs are good again. Because I could give a crap that Garza gets the Cubs to 70 wins instead of 65. I do care that prospects gained by trading Garza potentially get us to 95 wins instead of 85 in 2014.
tomas21 - December 20, 2011
and boom goes the dynamite
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Good point.
If we don’t get Fielder, we’re not going to be good in 2012. So, trade Garza and go for the long haul.
Still, I really hope we get Fielder.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Again, if you do both of those things
… not sign Fielder, AND trade Garza — you risk being a 100+ loss team in 2012.
Who’s going to pay top prices to see that?
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Oh, I agree with you.
My feeling is they should sign Fielder, keep Garza and add another starter.
But if you don’t sign Fielder — and you don’t plan on doing anything else major — why not trade Garza and seriously reload?
Also, I do think the Cubs can bounce back faster than the Royals or Pirates from a rebuilding year or two.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Easy to think.
Not so easy to do.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Not really.
The Cubs have revenue streams, even in bad years, that the Royals and Pirates would kill for. Plus, when the Cubs get good, fans come back faster (see 2007).
elgato - December 20, 2011
Sure.
But remember why fans came back in 2007 — because of a spending spree that resulted in a division title.
Also, ticket prices were lower then. And, in 2006 sales were still high in the afterglow of the 2003 division title and 2004 near-playoff-miss.
Those conditions no longer exist.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I just think the Cubs are in a better position than the Pirates or Royals ...
to weather a bad couple years.
elgato - December 20, 2011
You could be right.
But why take that risk?
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Because the alternative might be another Soriano-style contract.
Emphasis on might.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I think TheoJed are smart enough to avoid that.
Also, Fielder is four years younger than Soriano was when he signed.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Theo has handed out ridiculously bad contracts before.
And Fielder is what? 50 pounds heavier?
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
There is some risk with Fielder's body type.
Which is why you make the last few years of a deal options.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
And Prince would agree to this, instead of the guaranteed years another team offers because.......
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
This is the real issue.
The only thing that would seem to help the Cubs in this case is that Chicago isn’t Toronto or Seattle. Either that, or the Cubs pay more per year but give less years.
But the first is subjective (maybe Fielder would rather play in a lower-stress environment) and we don’t know if the Cubs can pay more per year even with fewer years on the deal.
I’m still thinking the Cubs get Fielder (just my gut). But it’s going to be at least seven years, probably eight.
elgato - December 20, 2011
...he has a record of success in the NL Central.
Chicago is a big market team. The NL Central is relatively more winnable than the AL East or AL West (now). He’s familiar/comfortable with Dale Sveum. There’s a bunch of reasons, really.
daver - December 20, 2011
It's just that there's no way to gauge how much Fielder ...
values those things.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Absolutely true.
We don’t know what Prince is thinking. I wonder whether he might also be looking at what happened to Adam Dunn last season and want no part of switching leagues and divisions.
daver - December 20, 2011
I have a feeling Prince's ego is healthy enough to realize
that what happened to Adam Dunn will most likely not happen to him
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Probably.
But setting aside Dunn’s awfulness, Fielder may also want to avoid getting mixed up in the conflict of whether an AL manager will try to DH him some or much of the time.
daver - December 20, 2011
Fielder has said "comfort" is important to him.
Whether that translates to knowing the manager well, knowing players on the team, switching leagues or divisions, being comfortable with the new city or just plain climate I don’t know.
But it does sound like he is not just after the largest deal.
BucknerKongCardenal - December 20, 2011
Every single one of those reasons can be knocked down with:
Peace of mind with a long term contract. Also, if I’m Fielder and I look at this team, I’m not sure I buy that the Cubs will be a contender before the Jays or Mariners.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
The reasons can be knocked down.
We just don’t know if they will be. It’s hard to know what Fielder values.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I don't think a player of Prince's caliber is going to take
a ton of options at the end of his contract. Unless the teams left in the bidding simply can’t give him what he’s looking for.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Well ...
if the Mariners offer $23 million per over nine years, and the Cubs offer $25 million per for eight with an option for the ninth …
But I don’t think the Cubs have an inherent advantage that would make Fielder take a big hit.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I think the Cubs...
…could very well be contenders before the Mariners (given what’s transpired in the AL West) and the Blue Jays (given the fact the, ahem, BJ’s have to leap frog three other contenders to win that division). But you may also be correct in that, if Prince is only interested in a straight-up cash grab and long-term security, maybe he will go in that direction.
daver - December 20, 2011
He also could be taking a page from the ARod playbook
Go for the largest contract, say all the right things, continue to put up impressive numbers, and if his contract becomes too much of an albatross, gets traded to another team.
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
That's another possibility.
But I can’t imagine he and his family would want to think in those kind of uncertain terms.
daver - December 20, 2011
It's like that scene from Animal House...
his family is the angel and we all know who the devil is.
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Because the Cubs go in bigger in $/year
They are a big market team. Realistically, they should have a $150M+ payroll. Spend it to get better. The bigger “overpay” problem is going in for too many years.
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
I think they're smart enough to avoid that, too.
Which is why they might pass on Fielder.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Doubt it was the spending spree
Certainly wasn’t the expectation level after a 66-96 season the year before either.
For that matter, the 2007 Cubs didn’t exactly overwhelm early in the year either. After they hit 16-16, they didn’t crack the .500 level for a month and a half and didn’t actually get into first place until August.
NobodySpecial - December 20, 2011
Well, isn't that why we hired the best?
and hasn’t he brought some of the brightest young minds on board with him?
The pain you keep describing is largely financial in nature. And if Ricketts is willing to take the short-term financial hit (please note: I did use the word “if”), then why couldn’t a rebuild approach be successful here?
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Because a short-term financial hit
… runs the risk of turning into a long-term financial hit.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Man, who peed in your cereal this morning?
Of course there’s a risk. There’s risk in everything. Do you not have confidence in the Cubs current leadership/ownership that the chance of short-term hit turning into a long term hit would be extremely minimized? And if they couldn’t minimize it to an acceptable level, they wouldn’t do it?
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Hey, you & I are having a discussion, not a cereal-peeing incident.
Anyway, TheoJed have already gone on record as saying that you can rebuild while continuing to compete every year.
Having heard that, I cannot imagine them doing a total teardown/rebuild.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
...
Emelie - December 20, 2011
Any cereal bowl with pee in it
is Unlucky Charms.
ddoubleheader - December 20, 2011
You
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Sure, me.
I’m talking about the casual fan who has dropped a lot of $ in the last eight years to see a team that was supposedly going all-out to win.
At these prices, those people will stay home.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
So they stay home.
Some portion of that revenue stream will be replaced by other casual fans who rarely came to games before because tickets were not perceived to be easily obtainable.
And obviously the remaining portion of that revenue stream will be lost. That’s the short-term financial hit that Ricketts has assess and decide if he wants to absorb it or not.
There’s also the possibility the Cubs adjust their ticket prices accordingly. Too late for 2012, though I’m sure Wally would crank up the promotional roulette wheel again but maybe 2013 prices get restructured. Then as the product on the field improves, prices start to move upward again accordingly.
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Some 2012 prices have already been reduced.
So that’s lower revenue before one single-game ticket has been sold.
Now if they put a rebuild team on the field and sell fewer tickets because of that and have to lower prices again… then what?
This is not something a major market team should ever do, IMO.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
And why would those casual fans come to games...
… to see a 100+ loss team?
Answer: they wouldn’t.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Cheap tickets
First time attending a game; day out with dad/mom; skipping school; atmosphere of the park; to say they’ve been to Wrigley.
There’s a thousand reasons to go to a game, regardless of W/L record.
Arbusto - December 20, 2011
And you think they'll come...
to watch a 95+ loss team (I’m being generous) just because they held on to Matt Garza? You overrate Matt Garza if you think he has that kind of impact. He’s a good pitcher. He’s one player. The Cubs need several, even if they sign Fielder and hold on to Garza. This is the argument for trading Matt Garza while his value is at his peak and the Cubs are currently going nowhere, even if they hold on to him.
jameslcrockett - December 21, 2011
man, you are the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy
crack me up…
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
That's an extraordinarily naive view, bh
You do realize there’s a crappy economy going on, right? I wouldn’t be so sure that people will always come. In fact, last season they didn’t.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Did you not see this part of my post?
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
I think you're soft-peadling it
I don’t think the number of “replacement fans” is anywhere close to what you think it might be.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
I agree with this.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Well then...
the Chicago Cubs will have to operate like the rest of the businesses in the United States and either make their product better, lower the price, or accept the loss in revenue. I’m certain the people in charge of this team understand this and have made their decisions on what routes they are are aren’t willing to take.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
And fans
also can make their decisions accordingly.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
The customer is always right.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Well, I have no clue as to what it might be - so I'm not soft-pedaling anything
I just beg to differ with this notion that the “casual fan” base will up and walk away en masse if the Cubs commit to a rebuilding effort.
It really doesn’t matter what I think anyway. I have no idea how they would/could quantify all this, but I’m guessing there’s a way to put a dollar value on everything. And once that happens, Ricketts is the one (I would presume) who has to make the call.
And I would think/hope that he (and perhaps siblings) would make this call after reviewing/assessing the data and listening to what his leadership team has to say.
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
My guess as to how reality plays out
Theo and Jed will just let the bad deals come off the books as they expire, or deal them at the trade deadline during their final year (like Fukudome last year). Then they’ll gradually insert youngsters and shrewd acquisitions/signings and continue to do so as the Cubs slowly but surely improve.
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
Naive college kids going on field trips
propheteer - December 20, 2011
Not as many as before, at these prices.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
True
It’s definitely more difficult to pull off now in days.
propheteer - December 20, 2011
I don't see
Garza plus nothing else of significance selling any tickets. Again I only trade garza if we don’t sign fielder. If we lose aramid and Pena and don’t sign fielder nobody is gOing to want to see the cubs play.
tomas21 - December 20, 2011
I'd be ok with
signing Fielder & still trading Garza. Do a re-build for the future with Prince in one of the key spots. That way you don’t need to use extra pieces searching for a Rizzo or other 1st baseman. you could concentrate on pitching.
SouthWabashSoul - December 20, 2011
So you'd concentrate on pitching
by getting rid of your best pitcher. OK.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Yes. I'm not sure
what world that doesn’t make sense in. I love Garza. Would love to keep him. But I’m also realistic that even with Garza & Fielder, we’re a borderline playoff team in 2012. I’d rather build for 2013-2015 with the expectation that we’ll be a powerhouse.
The Rockies traded their best pitcher and concentrated on pitching. Maybe in 3 years when Pomeranz & White are shutting us down you will understand the theory.
SouthWabashSoul - December 20, 2011
You do realize Garza and Fielder
probably would be good in 2013-15, too.
If Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are shutting the Cubs down in three years, I guess that proves you right that they should have traded Garza. In some alternative universe, I guess.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
No, I'm not sure it does
But it would indicate that there’s some validity to the theory.
Yes, I realize they’ll still be good those years. But if we are still waiting for guys like Maples & Baez to develop, what good is it? We’re not good enough, right now. We need more good players. One way to do that is to trade good pieces for multiple future good pieces. It’s just one way. IMO, your way leads down a road of consistent mediocrity for the next 3 or 4 years.
SouthWabashSoul - December 20, 2011
But the Cubs can win 92 games next year
if we have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on the team.
mic - December 20, 2011
The Cubs can win 92 games next year
by sending Tanya Harding ahead of games to ‘meet’ with the other team. Not seeing it any other way to get to 92 wins.
ddoubleheader - December 20, 2011
This joke is the opposite end of "too soon" spectrum into the "way too late."
Arbusto - December 20, 2011
and therefore it's circled back to "funny"
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
What's old is new again.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Way too late?
Drat! There goes my joke about the Cubs and penny farthings.
ddoubleheader - December 21, 2011
But Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead......
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
They're not dead yet
They’re just… pining for the fjords.
Coming season the Cubs should adopt a dead parrot as their mascot.
ddoubleheader - December 21, 2011
Logic rules in this forum........
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
I don't mind the ongoing "to rebuild or not to rebuild" debate...
provided the arguments are honest and even-keeled. Let’s just be clear that “because I personally would love/hate it” isn’t a valid reason why the Cubs should or shouldn’t tear everything down and rebuild from scratch.
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
And if
they don’t sign Fielder and keep Garza… you really think has a big dramatic effect on team perception?
If they’re a 100+ loss team without those two… then you’re saying they are, what, a 96 loss team with Garza? (And, just so NBF doesn’t get confused… this. does. not. mean. trade. Garza. at. all. costs.)
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
So, loosely paraphrased...
Am I doing it right?
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
That's apparently what posts look like from NBF's computer.
fsuapollo - December 20, 2011
Nope
You have no guarantee those prospects would get you anything.
Again, the Cubs can do both. They should take advantage of that.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
The Cubs can do both
And that’s the general sentiment that Theo has stated.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Yes, indeed
A lot of posters seem to ignore Theo said that, but indeed he did.
And there is precious little, if anything, in which signing Fielder contradicts any of Theo’s stated philosophy.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
And there is no guarantee that if you sign Garza long term that he doesn't blow out his arm.
Or that he maintains his current success, etc. Everything in baseball is a gamble, if it were as calculated as stats make it seem, there would be no bad deals.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
And another Rec'd makes 10.
Outstanding response. Doubt it’ll sink in.
blackhawk24 - December 20, 2011
Do you think that Cubs management would take this course of action?
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
If they know they can absorb a notable amount of red ink
for 2012 and 2013. They also have to know how to market their approach. By that I’m not talking about bullshit one-liners like, “the kids can play” but an open approach to how they’re building the system (coaches, trainers, scouting too not just players) on sound fundamental baseball.
It won’t be good for ticket sales at first and there will be empty seats. But their operating expenses from MLB payroll standpoint would also be a lot lower. By that I mean sub-$100M and by several million bucks BTW.
There are also ancillary things like the ballpark renovations. They can’t come to the city/state and ask for $200M again (even if they want to put up $200M of their own) if they’re going into a re-build mode.
And here’s the rub on the whole thing. They still have big contracts to get out from under now. Soriano, Z, Demp, Marmol & Byrd. Those add up (for 2012 only) to $18+18+14+7+6.5=$63.5
They have to decide how much rebuild there is. And “rebuild” is a nasty word for big-market teams. I am glad the TedStein is keeping quiet. It’s hard on the fans – boy do I know that following the Blackhawks; they’re extremely tightlipped – but I have confidence in this new leadership group especially with Hendry gone & Kenney out of baseball ops.
blackhawk24 - December 21, 2011
Rec'd
I don’t understand why the “rebuild haters” can’t see the logic on display here. Yes, the potential is high for taking a significant financial short-term hit. But if the long-term reward is there (and can be quantified as such to outweigh the hit), AND if you trust team leadership/ownership to properly evaluate all aspects of this approach, why all the angst?
IF this course of action is the one taken (and that’s still a big IF in my mind), why not embrace it and have fun with it? Why not enjoy watching a team being built “the right way” and improving every year? Think a phoenix rising up out of the ashes.
ballhawk - December 21, 2011
You and I would enjoy it and embrace it.
The point is that the short-term financial hit you mention runs the risk of becoming a long-term financial hit.
It’s a bigger risk than you think, and I don’t believe a big-market team should do this.
Al Yellon - December 21, 2011
So you think you know more about the risk involved than Ricketts, Epstein, Hoyer, etc?
Because I believe I’ve been pretty consistent in my comments that the key here in the decision-making process is what Ricketts thinks, not what I think. And I’d have to believe Ricketts’ decision would be based in a large part on information and recommendations supplied by Epstein, Hoyer, and others in the leadership team.
ballhawk - December 21, 2011
Of course, that's true.
All of us are simply expressing our own opinions on the matter here. Yours differs from mine. We’ll see what approach they take.
Al Yellon - December 21, 2011
If Cubs management decides to do that, maybe I'll start following MLS or pay Ecclestone for online access to F1 races
Because baseball will be a long, long stretch of “no fun.”
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
That's right, CF
Don’t tell that to the Dave Littlefield wanna-bes here, however.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
It's kinda weird
How when people said they wouldn’t go watch the Cubs because they sucked you were all, “good, more tickets for me,” and yet now you’re agreeing with people who are ready to bail. I wonder why that is.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
Who are these "some fans" you speak of, NBF?
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
I'm not going to fall into your trap, bh
Open your eyes, read the posts and draw your own conclusions.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
In other words:
I can’t name one, but I sure love to make inaccurate generalizations
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Nope
You can see it for yourself, too.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
No Bruce. You can't.
No one is saying we’re some destitute franchise in some small city. No one’s even really implying that.
You’re main point isn’t wrong. You’re just ginning up your argument without need or evidence.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I guess that makes me as guilty
as 90 percent of the posters on this board, eg. Fair enough.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
You're equally as guilty
But your crime is far more annoying.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Inconvenient truths
often are.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Here's one...this guy is probably gonna be our 2012 first-baseman.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Good. He can play
in front of 15,000 people this season, too.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
You do realize in the next thread Bruce participates in
He’s going to claim everyone WANTS him to be the 1st baseman next year now right?
You did this.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I certainly do think
that’s what some posters want.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Based on what?
I’ll give you points for using “some posters” as opposed to your usual “everyone”
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
Maybe you've missed it before
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
I want it to happen.
You can use my name the next time you get called out for making unfounded generalizations.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Really?
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
If we're not going to get Fielder? Yes. Put LeHair at 1st and playball.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
The "if we're not getting Fielder"
Is going to be the key context that’s ignored.
Arbusto - December 20, 2011
That's NBF's expertise. Ignoring context.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Clueless.
Dcr18 - December 20, 2011
We can't handle your inconvenient truths!
daver - December 20, 2011
I'm still waiting for one of these truths to actually be.....true
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
The truth is like my cousins
they’re all relative.
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
I've read through nearly every comment in this thread,
And I have yet to see anyone making comments even remotely similar to what you say they are. I get that you disagree with people here, but to label anyone who disagrees with you as saying the Cubs are “a destitute team in a small city” isn’t just inaccurate, it’s completely wrong.
If you disagree with other posters, that’s fine. But that does not give you the right to slander them, either on these boards or in person. If you actually see someone saying the Cubs are a destitute team in a small city, you have every right to say it. But when you claim to see that when no one is saying that, that is where the backlash is coming from, and that is when you essentially are slandering us on the blogs.
Please, and I’m asking this nicely, if you disagree with others here, please debate the point rather than making generalizations about what they are saying. I think you’d find people would not constantly with you over semantics that way.
Vermont Cubs Fan - December 21, 2011
That last bit should read
“Constantly argue with you over semantics that way”.
Whar edit function?
Vermont Cubs Fan - December 21, 2011
"some fans" are the opposite of "real fans"
Come on man, keep up with da lingo!
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Well, I have been a Cubs fan for a long, long time but if they go the "blow up the team and lose 105 games" route I have other ways to spend my summer
Fool me once, shame on you……
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
Exactly the point I've been trying to make.
And you’re much more dedicated than most. The casual fan would just stop coming.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Exactly. and thats what i think people are missing.
everyone is looking at the free agent pitching class for next year, and i think at least 50% of those guys sign extensions anyways. but what pitcher would want to come to the cubs if they cant score a run, or have any offensive power at all? Fielder is part of rebuilding, you need that start to attract other guys to want to play here. Why do you think Pitt can’t get a star, or the Nationals struggled for awhile to be in those conversations. You need other guys on the roster to attract big time players. simple as that.
MDavis - December 20, 2011
Weaver already did.
The Giants are supposedly talking with Cain. Hamels may hit Free Agency but I wounder what the Yankees would offer him?
rlpete - December 20, 2011
Maybe we overestimate what the Yankees have to pay?
They weren’t in on Darvish. They passed, completely, on Wilson. Maybe they didn’t value those guys, but maybe they are near their limit.
jerry morales rules - December 20, 2011
Even if half do
it will still be the best FA pitching class in many, many years.
jerry morales rules - December 20, 2011
I think the money Texas will have to dole out is good for them.
I think where we are as a ballclub did not make sense. I would of loved to see him in Chicago, but for a contract south of 100M.
If the Cubs do not land Fielder, then they have to knock on the door for Rizzo. Then look at a signing of Saunders.
Grockcubs - December 20, 2011
No DH in the NL - Disadvantage Cubs
Having the DH slot to offer in a 10 year contract is appearing to be a risk advantage to AL teams. AL teams know they can offer DH time early in a long-term contract and oftern later on. The possible breakdown of a player in the later years of a contract can not be mitigated by DH time.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Do you mean...
…the possible breakdown of a player can be mitigated by DH time?
daver - December 20, 2011
Sorry - in the NL it cannot be mitigated with DH time
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Yet.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Right - til 2016
If the Cubs signed Fielder to 10 years, that could motivate them to support the DH in the next CBA.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Oh, OK -- I thought you were still referring to the AL.
daver - December 20, 2011
My bad
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
I'm all for signing Fielder
as long as we’re not stuck with another albatross contract.
If it’s going to hamper the future, as the Soriano contract has, then I’m ok with waiting it out, and applying that money toward other pieces of a winning puzzle.
Winning will do more to reestablish the fan base than one huge contract that will hamper the future. (See Soriano, etc.)
chrisw95 - December 20, 2011
Soriano by himself did not hamper the Cubs.
They can afford one bad deal. You have to add in Bradley, Fukudome, Grabow, Zambrano and to a lesser extent Byrd and Dempster who while good are not bargains in the least.
rlpete - December 20, 2011
I just threw up in my mouth a little
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
The Cubs also had few bargains during that era.
Other than Theriot, Soto and Marmol (and I guess Rich Hill) the team circa 2007-09 was filled with expensive veterans. Even the good contracts like those add up.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Luckily our system is LOADED
With guys who can fill the 20-25 spots on the roster. Wilken/Hendry LOVED to stockpile those types of prospects.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
You're like the anti Senior Gato but equally as annoying.
It’s pretty impressive, really.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Glad you embrace mediocrity
I on the other hand would like us to start stockpiling guys who can actually produce……at baseball.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
Dude.
It’s not like it’s been proven guys like Sczur and Jackson can’t produce. I get being skeptical but you really have wandered into Senor Gato territory with the absolutes on guys that haven’t really been given a chance to succeed or fail yet.
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
I think BJax will be a solid regular
I’m just not fond of guys who don’t control the Strikezone. Especially if they don’t have power or play a particularly demanding defensive position.
The Szczur hype is pure homerism IMHO.
If he was a Cards or Pirates prospect, these same folks touting him would be calling him garbage.
I’m just calling a spade a spade. Hopefully the kid proves me wrong someday.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
what?
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
What's not to get?
Does the kid walk? Has he shown power at ANY level? Is it foregone that his glove can work in center?
Take away the hype and look at the actual production.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
few things are foregone in baseball
timh815 - December 20, 2011
are you talking about bjax or sczcur?
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
If you're referring to Szczur, defense is his most dominant tool
He’s a plus defender with plus plus speed, and a plus arm. He’s got good contact rates.
In A this year he had a 7% walk rate (I notice you only use his 2.7% walk rate in A+) while only striking out at a 9.4% (or 11% in A+) rate. It seems likely that Szczur wore down from his first full season of baseball.
He may not ever amount to anything, but he’s got the opportunity to be a very good defensive and average/above average offensive center fielder with a little pop. I’m willing to give him more than 1 year focused on baseball before I crap all over him.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
I'm willing to wait it out
I hope I’m wrong on the kid. I just don’t see the Pollyanna prediction that some of you see.
If he starts being productive, ill gladly admit I was wrong.
FWIW I didn’t like Harvey, Colvin, LeMath, or Barney for similar reasons.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
That's fine, and you don't need to like a prospect just because other people do.
But to claim he’s only talked about because of hype from Cubs fans is simply incorrect. He does have upside, and talent scouts and those who create prospect lists are taking note of him as well.
He may flame out, in fact there is a better chance he fails than succeeds, but that’s true with most/all prospects, isn’t it?
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
None of us are privy to the overall plan or what team Theo is thinking.
Now I would like to see Fielder here of course, his bat could be a season changer for us as long as we get a couple of career years out of some other players.
But, if the plan to go young produces a highly competitive team for many years in a row, say starting in 2014, then I’m in with that plan.
I just can’t believe though we would tank a season with some much money to be made at Wrigley and in sales. I agree with Al, people in the seats is the bottom line.
mrcubsfan - December 20, 2011
I am glad we didnt spend 51 million + a contract
I am all for signing Prince right now as long as we don’t over pay. If he wants 7 years he can take it in Toronto/Seatle and see how much he hates losing for the next few years. 5 years at about 20 million a year is ok with me If not let the rebuilding continue
lshaffer_69 - December 20, 2011
About 80M short.
Grockcubs - December 20, 2011
Thats 20 mil a year not over 5 years
lshaffer_69 - December 21, 2011
On the first part of that title...
GOOD. Money will be better spent elsewhere (and not just this upcoming season). On the second part of that title, go get the big guy Jed-Stein.
blackhawk24 - December 20, 2011
Fielder now looks even more likely
For many reasons. The competition just shrunk. Is he really interested in playing for Seattle or Toronto? Unlikely unless they absolutely trump what the Cubs offer. Theo/ Jed know there won’t be another prolific 1B on the market for awhile. Rizzo and other younger options keep getting mentioned but does it make sense to give up young pitching for the unknown? Building around young players and solidifying the pitching seem to be what they want to do so I can’t see trading our best prospects for those guys
plenz - December 20, 2011
something else has to be done
I’m not saying what, but something.. Because right now this is still a 71 win team, and I’m not buying tickets to see that.
ballstitch - December 20, 2011
I'm not sure it's a 71 win team.
elgato - December 20, 2011
i realize they cant turn it around in one year
But they have to know how bad this team would be as it stands now, so therefore, surely something will happen ? Sigh.
ballstitch - December 20, 2011
Was wondering...
You mean that to mean they WON’T get to 71 wins with this team as of now, right el?
Easy Ed - December 20, 2011
Are you a season ticket holder
If not I understand not going to a lot of games but we are rebuilding. I am still going to try to come to a game or too like any other season. Are you saying you would stop going until this team is better?
lshaffer_69 - December 21, 2011
Draft Picks
The problem with not blowing it up and throwing together a ‘competitive’ team in 2012 and beyond is the high likelihood that the team is competitive for a little bit and ends up being a ~0.500 club stuck in the middle of the pack. With the new CBA it is more important than ever to get those top 5 picks to get actual talent. No longer can the Cubs pick 25th and get a top 5 guy just by throwing money around. So, either the Cubs have to be really bad and get one of the top picks or they have to be really great in trades/free agency and win that way. Like it’s been said above, there aren’t a ton of star prospects in the system and only 1 or 2 viable trade chips to get those stars via trade, so how would the Cubs obtain young star talent without getting a top 5 pick?
All of that said, I would much rather see PF this year and watch a competitive team, I just don’t know if there is enough in the system to compliment PF in the coming years without some spectacular trades / signings.
nick5253 - December 20, 2011
I'm really waiting to see how the the Draft and new CBA rules work out.
Because I don’t think it’s going to play out like the scenario you just painted. if someone can further explain the new situation, please do. But, from a casual reader’s perspective, there are still going to be teams who spend over slot to sign guys that other teams steered away from because of signability issues. It’s just that each team now has some sort of draft spending cap. Right? So, small market teams can’t just throw the majority of their talent budget at the draft and load up on amateur talent.
SackMan - December 20, 2011
I'm no CBA expert either...
…but I believe it’s not so much a draft spending cap on each team as massive penalties levied on any team that goes overslot. So I think nick is pretty close to the truth. Of course, we do need to see a few drafts play out before we know exactly what will happen.
daver - December 20, 2011
The new CBA is essentially a hard slot on draft picks
A team can pay up to 10% over their alloted draft pool for the first 10 rounds without facing penalties. But if they go over that, they get a hefty fine and lose draft picks the next year. If a team fails to sign one of their picks in the first 10 rounds, their draft pool gets reduced by the amount of that pick’s slot.
Essentially, teams can only pay a draft pick 10% over the slot value without giving up draft picks. The days of Dillon Maples getting $2.5 million in the 14th round are over.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
Ok... that's the simple explanation I needed.
But what about the talent past round 10? Are there no penalties past round 10 for spending over slot? Can you spend more than 10% past round 10? But if so, will there even be any players worth spending over slot past round 10, when many of them will have been drafted already at a 10% increase over slot in the top rounds?
SackMan - December 20, 2011
There is also a total budget too.
rlpete - December 20, 2011
Past round 10
Any bonus given over $100K will be counted against the draft pool for the 1st 10 rounds, minus that $100K. Example:
Cubs sign Dillon Maples in round 14 under the new CBA for $2.5 million. $2.4 million of that amount will count towards the draft pool for the first 10 rounds. This means that some well under-slot signing would have to take place in the first 10 rounds to account for this.
My prediction is that we see a few more low-ceiling college seniors getting picked early. They are the ones that would accept lower than slot to sign.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
So you want the baseball version of "suck for Luck?" No, thanks.....
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
The new CBA rules help the Cubs...
not hurt them. At least as we can compare to the recent past efforts of the Cubs not what we would project Epstein/Hoyer/Ricketts/et al. to do.
Which top 5 players did the Cubs draft with a late pick by “throwing money around”? If they had actually done that, we wouldn’t be having the kinds of lesser of two evils discussions going on in this thread and we might be able to concentrate on an actual formula for winning a World Series instead of just how to make sure sure “casual fans” don’t jump off cliffs like lemmings over a couple extra losses.
I’m tired of the extra losses, but I’m really tired of extra losses with no meaning… and I would hope Epstein has enough brain cells left to not stand for it too.
jameslcrockett - December 21, 2011
heres the view from an average fan
First, ive been lurking around these parts for the past few months but not really commenting (just recently discovered the whole blog thing) but i think that you are spot on Al, we have to get PF, so the average fan, like myself will actually want to go to the games. Can the Cubs really afford to go barren and have Astros like season? Especially for 3 or 4 years? I live on the southside and dont have a lot of money, so when im going to a Cubs game, its a big deal to me, and looking at this lineup, i dont think its a team im going to pay to see. I just think at least signing Prince will get the average fan like me interested, and at least excited about next season.
lowkeyman - December 20, 2011
Welcome aboard, and hope you stick around.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Welcome!
Emelie - December 20, 2011
Your opinion is valid...
but so is the opinion of those that would rather win a world series before our grandparents die than care whether the team loses 80 games instead of 90.
Some of us also would rather pay to watch young players who might have a future than overpaid veterans who suck and turn into albatrosses because the team doesn’t build up and cultivate enough young talent to back them up when they don’t live up to their contracts.
The Cubs have been putting the cart before the horse for far too many years. My hope lies in Theo Epstein not repeating those mistakes, while not making completely new ones.
jameslcrockett - December 21, 2011
Welcome to BCB!
Excellent point.
Vermont Cubs Fan - December 21, 2011
I'm not a Fielder fan but they have to do it
They’ve got absolutely nothing right now to scare opposing pitchers or bring fans to the ballpark. They need a “superstar” to build around.
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
I know this isn't apples to oranges...
… but the Cubs’ purchase of the property next to Wrigley plus building is going to yield many more positives over the long hall than Darvish will for the Rangers at less price.
Goat Whisperer - December 20, 2011
The Rangers are trying to win the world series. That's priceless.
SackMan - December 20, 2011
Yes, but
the Rangers are in a whole different stratosphere. A Cub winning bid last night wouldn’t have made them a contender. Over the long haul (vice “hall” in my post. Ugh.)
Goat Whisperer - December 20, 2011
Not a contender right now. But controlling a young Ace for a 5-7 year deal
Potentially makes them a contender in the future when the rest of the roster is ready.
SackMan - December 20, 2011
The 2012 Cubs could be marketed at "The Kids Can Play"
But I know I’ve heard that someplace before…
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Except even that is questionable.
rlpete - December 20, 2011
And even if you did that, what if they start losing?
The place will be empty by Memorial Day.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
I bet you'd feel different if it kept HWSNBN away too...
;-)
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
You know the Cubs are bad
if you see more people on the Wrigley rooftops than in Wrigley itself.
ddoubleheader - December 20, 2011
Could go with "The Kids Are Alright"
No more organ music – make The Who the house band and Roger Daltrey could sing TMOTTB every game.
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Won't Get Fooled Again
Hopefully referring to better baserunning.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
"Who are you" To our manager?
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
...
eths - December 20, 2011
Leadoff hitter? Or closer?
ClarkFan - December 20, 2011
3rd base coach
timh815 - December 20, 2011
I'd call that a bargain, the best I ever had.
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
I think we need to come to the realization we are not getting Fielder
That unless we are the only team in the run for Fielder, we won’t get him. Time and time again, either Epstein, Hoyer, or Svuem have stated the club’s intent on not spending a lot of money this off season. Here are just a few damning quotes:
Epstein:
Hoyer:
You can read more at the following link.
Furthermore, Sveum has stated the Cubs have not reached out to Fielder. Unless he has a burning desire to play for the Cubs instead of the Blue Jays or Mariners, I don’t see us signing him unless he significantly reduces his terms. I think the club’s role in the Pujols signing suggests this as well.
Chanman25 - December 20, 2011
Link
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111207&content_id=26120830&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc
Chanman25 - December 20, 2011
Maybe the brain trust is playing possum?
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
I don't know
but with what we’ve publicly seen throughout this entire off season, and these statements, I think it is safe to say we won’t be getting Fielder.
Chanman25 - December 20, 2011
I don't think they want to go 10 years on Fielder
But if they could overpay him for 5 years, that could fit with Theo’s vision.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
This possum is looking like it has rigor mortis
Sometimes a possum isn’t playing. Cubs confidence declining, declining,
D
…e
…….c
………l
…………i
……………n
………………i
…………………n
……………………g
ddoubleheader - December 20, 2011
Actually Sveum said they had not "talked" to
Fielder but they have talked with his agent which is how these things work.
sue369 - December 20, 2011
big differences
the biggest differences between fielder and soriano is soriano never had the consistent numbers fielder put up and his biggest attraction to mc donough kenney and hendry was the numbers he put up on a last place team in a contract year.i dont see the comparison of the two players.
notcubbiewubbie - December 20, 2011
off topic but...
Really loving this new android app! Works great on my tablet.
Cody Sharp - December 20, 2011 via Android app
Reallocate the Fielder money to make Chicago "Havana North"
That $25 million could be spread around to really help the team in the future.
Yoennis Cespedes – 6 year, $72 million ($12 million a year) – Not sure if this would get him, as the Yanks are reportedly very interested, and he does carry a ton of risk. But this is where the scouting genius of Theo/Jed/Jason comes into play. Even at a high cost of $12 million a year, this could be a bargain and Cespedes would be locked up during his prime.
Jorge Soler – 5 year, $25 million ($5 million a year) – Another estimate, as Leonys Martin got 5 years and $15 million. Only 19 years old, I believe it was Kevin Goldstein that said had Soler been in the 2009 draft, he would have been the 5th player taken and would currently rank in the top 25 prospects in baseball. This is the impact talent we need more of in our system.
Geraldo Concepcion – 5 year, $20 million ($4 million a year) – Cuban ROY. A LHP that has a good fastball, supposedly good control and is projectible. LHP is the biggest system weakness behind impact talent. Possible LHP impact talent would be ideal.
Onelki Garcia – 5 year, $20 million ($4 million a year) – Everyone remember the draft day scare with him? He’s young, has a great pitcher’s build, throws low-to-mid 90’s heat and has a great curve. He would be another potential impact LHP to add to the system.
With the exception of Cespedes, none of these guys would add anything to the big league team in 2012, but our farm would sky rocket up the ranking and we would be in a tremendous position to compete in future years. If we dealt Garza/Marshall/Marmol/Soto, those prospects would only help to shorten the rebuilding time.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
You're hired.
SackMan - December 20, 2011
Soler, yes
I don’t think we’re getting Cespedes.
KO Stradivarius - December 20, 2011
I don't either
I prefer Soler anyway, TBH. But there is a pretty big push for him as well.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
Oy, what a headache this is
I wish baseball were played only on paper sometimes.
I think I’ll go cheer for the Pirates.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
We accept.
Arbusto - December 20, 2011
I'm drawing up the papers!
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
No need
If all this comes to fruition, you’ll be cheering for the Pirates, too, although you might not realize it.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Were you not paying attention toward the end of the season last year? We were actively cheering for the Pirates here most of the time.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Are you saying the Pirates are going to move to Chicago and start playing in Wrigley
without telling anyone?
Nunyabidness - December 20, 2011
that's right and we may not ever know it either
blackhawk24 - December 21, 2011
Cubs are following
the Nutting strategy for success. It worked for the Pirates, it’ll work for the Cubs!
ddoubleheader - December 21, 2011
Because there are international signings to be explored?
Does not compute.
daver - December 20, 2011
It's not an either/or proposition
This franchise doesn’t have to eschew signing a free agent who fits the parameters so it can sign a bunch of maybes. They can do both.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
They can TRY to do both.
We don’t know what Fielder/Boras are demanding. If they’re being ridiculous, it may make a lot more sense to explore these kind of alternatives.
daver - December 20, 2011
Right.
There’s the principled argument, and then there’s the practical argument.
Should the Cubs try to compete every year? Yes.
Should the Cubs mortgage several future years on a potentially bad-bodied first baseman who might get a 9- or 10-year deal? No.
elgato - December 20, 2011
And likewise...
people here can still want the Cubs to not spend an enormous amount of $ on the current FA players that are available and not be idiots.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
"Free agents" isn't a bad word
If it makes sense, do it. Fielder makes far too much sense not to do.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
Sure....but can you allow people to disagree with you about whether or not "it makes sense" without calling their IQ's into question?
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
If their arguments
weren’t full of more holes than Tony Montana at the end of “Scarface,” probably.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
But you shouldn't lump ...
the people whose arguments are full of holes (as you see them) in with those who simply don’t want to go 10 years for Fielder.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Once again, it's all about price
Prince on a 10 year, $250 million deal makes ZERO sense.
Prince on a 7 year, $161 million deal makes a little sense.
Prince on a 5 year, $118 million deal makes a TON of sense.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
COCAINE EVERYWHERE!!!!! BANG BANG BANG!!!!!!!
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Huh?
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
SWL is just planning his weekend.
daver - December 20, 2011
Holy shit
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
Holes in his argument statement from above.
Arbusto - December 20, 2011
Sure you don't mean "holds" in his argument? ;-)
Emelie - December 21, 2011
You're dreaming of a white christmas?
eths - December 20, 2011
Something's white but I don't think its Christmas...yikes !
blackhawk24 - December 21, 2011
What makes a TON of sense to you
Doesn’t make a TON of sense to Scott Boras. Less money than Ryan Howard? Not going to happen.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Of course is isn't
I was laying down the different scenarios of where I would view a Prince Fielder signing as acceptable.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
The way this thread is going, it should be retitled
“How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Prince?”
EalyEagle - December 20, 2011
So to recap
You laid out one scenario that is acceptable to you, yet extremely unlikely to occur. Good luck with that.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Apparently I have to spell it out for you
I don’t want Prince Fielder unless the contract is right. I never once said that it was likely to happen. I never even INSINUATED that it was likely to happen. Not sure where you are getting this from.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
What you spelled out is a pointless scenario that won't happen
But it’s yours. Enjoy.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
Geez, crucify the guy for adding some context to a debate.
shoemile - December 21, 2011
I'd be willing to give Prince an option of 3 contract directions
7/154 (which is identical to what Adrian Gonzalez got)
8/164
10/190
Then maybe throw in some incentives along the lines of 1Million per All Star appearance and 5 million per MVP award.
aaronb - December 20, 2011
On a reasonable Prince deal, I would agree.
But if he’s getting $25 million a year, I don’t think it’s possible without getting salary relief from the trading of Z/Soriano/Marmol/Byrd/etc.
RynoRooter - December 20, 2011
The only ones who know that for sure
are Ricketts and Theo/Jed.
If they don’t see this, maybe Theo/Jed aren’t as smart as I think they are.
Not Bruce Froemming - December 20, 2011
I know this is futile...but...
could you tell us some players you’d like the Cubs to try and sign? Just like 3….is that too much to ask?
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
Good info...
…and it wouldn’t surprise me if Theo & Jed are exploring these options.
daver - December 20, 2011
Beyond David DeJesus, Ian Stewart, and McDonald's...
The only way to get above .500 next year is to trade away every scrap of the farm system.
It’s crystal clear that Theo and Jed are going to be rebuilding. They could go after Cespedes or Fielder, but they would be wasting tens of millions of dollars over the next couple of years because we simply do not have the pitching to compete. No Darvish, no Wilson, no Buerhle – there is nothing left for a rotation that needs an ace who can put up numbers better than Garza.
All we have to trade are Garza and Marmol, who will both be gone in 2014. Might as well deal them now. Keep Marshall, and obviously keep all the prospects and Castro. The future may be bright again. 2012 looks pretty bleak. I’m phoning it in.
KO Stradivarius - December 20, 2011
We need Fielder.......And if I had the choice between LaHair and Sorino in LF.....I will take LaHair
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
...by a hair?
daver - December 20, 2011
Sadly LaHair is the better fielder and has a better eye at the plate and is LH.
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
Better fielder?
What are you basing that on? Even an eyeball test would seem to have too small of a sample size.
elgato - December 20, 2011
do you have to ask?
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
Actually, I do.
Soriano’s bad in left. But categorically saying LaHair is better doesn’t seem to be based on much.
elgato - December 20, 2011
TJ doesn’t need much in order to have an unchanging opinion on something
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
Oh. I see what you were getting at.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Relax El.....
Soriano is a horrid LF…….cant get much worse…if the other guy is a better hitter its a no brainer.
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
I am saying you are a better fielder that Soriano Elgato....
Saying anyone is a better fielder than Soriano is an easy one…
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
Ha.
Well, I’m no Soriano defender, but I think you’re stretching. Sorry.
elgato - December 20, 2011
Not stretching....He is scared of the wall and moving quickly
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
Think what you want, TJ.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I will...Do you disagree that he moves slowly, does not hustle and is scared of the wall?
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
Scared of the wall and moves slowly? Yes.
Does he not hustle? I’d say there are times when he doesn’t.
I just don’t know how good (or how bad) LaHair would be out there.
elgato - December 20, 2011
I just already know what Soriano can do.
That would MANY times he does not hustle….
Theo and Jed are trying very hard to move him for all of these reasons besides his contract.
TJ11 - December 20, 2011
You are KILLING IT today
Mapmaker - December 20, 2011
Agreed
jerry morales rules - December 20, 2011
meh
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
Not seeing this elsewhere ...
the Cubs (and Yankees) reportedly bid less than $20 million for Darvish.
https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewMarchand/status/149204392153841664
elgato - December 20, 2011
SRSLY?
So, if true, we basically made a token bid.
daver - December 20, 2011
Sure sounds like it.
Maybe TheoJed were just trying to catch everybody else napping.
elgato - December 20, 2011
That would jibe with what that Boston reporter wrote.
daver - December 20, 2011
I thought he was just speculating.
I kid. I kid.
elgato - December 20, 2011
And I hate to bring this up again...
…but that would also mean Joeby’s sources were about $30 million off.
daver - December 20, 2011
Heh.
We should stop this before somebody gets offended. :)
elgato - December 20, 2011
Kinda surprised there hasn't been any photo caption comments yet.
I’ll start
ballhawk - December 20, 2011
Naaawwwww.... That picture is from the Hendry era...
Jim, Jim, I want a hug too!
eths - December 20, 2011
"The total duration of my contract...
…needs to be this big, though I am willing to negotiate a shorter-term deal for a higher annual average value or consider option years that both myself and my potential employer would find mutually acceptable. Now, regarding a limited or perhaps unlimited no-trade clause…"
daver - December 20, 2011
Meet the new Cubs! Same (or worse) as (than) the old Cubs!
Oh irony if Sveum’s team loses more than Quade’s team. Is there a point at which the Loveable Losers become the Loathsome Losers?
The Cubs’ offseason moves looked more stiff than that “old” geezer Six Flags had. One would need Harry Caray-thickness glasses to find a bright spot on this team.
ddoubleheader - December 20, 2011
I find that Six Flags "geezer" really creepy.
daver - December 20, 2011
Soriano for Young
Totally agree with you guys who say Fielder for 5, I might even go a mutual option for a 6th year. Soriano is in the way of progress though and the only way to fix that I can come up with is to work out a swap with Texas for Michael Young. I’m not sold on Stewart at 3B but Young can play effectively anywhere on the infield and the contracts are similar. Soriano is best off being a DH in the AL and would be healthier and more productive for it. Young would give us a .300 and productivity with healthy legs where we need it most…..the infield. Dumping Soriano allows Byrd to shift to left, Brett Jackson to roam CF and more (deserved) playing time for Campana. This would be the best offseason outcome for our situation I can think of.
Hollywood67 - December 20, 2011
And now the $54 million question:
Why would the Rangers make that trade – especially after the season Young just had?
daver - December 20, 2011
other teams exist to take our trash
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
Particularly teams that have played in the World Series...
…for the last two years running.
daver - December 20, 2011
Well I'm sure after Theo and Jed explain it to them...they'll understand how benifical it is...or...something.
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
"Jon, buddy, you beat us in the Darvish bidding...
…How ‘bout you do us a solid and take Soriano off our hands? Straight up for Michael Young. C’mon, even steven, whaddya say? Jon? Hello? Is this thing on?"
daver - December 20, 2011
one positive about rebuilding
for people like me who live in wrigleyville is the low ticket prices….tix will continue to be way below face value. I will not be be buying one ticket from the Cubs when single games go on sale and can’t see how anybody else would either unless it’s a name team (red sox or cardinal games). Just get them on stubhub or people dumping them around the park. Season ticket holders continue to get screwed.
MikeJW - December 20, 2011
Screw rebuilding.
It’s BUILDING that the Cubs should be doing.
jeffmills1972 - December 20, 2011
"I will not be be buying one ticket from the Cubs when single games go on sale"
I won’t either. Not even the Red Sox games. Any ticket to any game is so damn easy to get, and will continue to be until they make the playoffs again.
STHs are simply throwing their money away.
bluemagic9 - December 20, 2011
i have to agree with you
and I go to around 20 games a year, just cannot see how anybody can fork over $5,000 plus for this product right now, it’s been a losing investment.
From 2008 to 2010 I spent anywhere from $1500.00 to $2000.00 on the Friday that single games went on sale. No more.
MikeJW - December 20, 2011
general manager etc
This is so much BS, makes me think Hendry is still telling them what to do,,first thing ,,they get rid of one of the best third baseman around and then they buy land,,WHAT ABOUT BALL PLAYERS,,it must be a write off for the new owners,,this team needs to make a move now,,ESPN is reporting that the Baltimore birds are after fielder,,,this is going to be NO better then the past few years,,,,a die hard cub fan of 60 years dying a slow death %%$$$&^%$#@@(
Larki40 - December 20, 2011
BOOM
Rant of the Day.
Thank you!
daver - December 20, 2011
Multiple commas are the new multiple periods
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
I know life sometimes can get tough! And I know life sometimes can be a drag!
But people, we have been given a gift, we have been given a role And that roles name is… Rock and Roll!
santoswoodenlegs - December 20, 2011
i like captain crunch
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
Enough of that crappy cereal.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
enough of your irrational hate for awesome breakfast food
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
I love awesome breakfast food.
Like Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Not that cardboard you eat.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
first your dislike of angry beavers and now this...
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
I'm so glad they haven't been showing that on "The 90's are All That"
shoemile - December 20, 2011
i haven't watched that since the week it started
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
You're missing out, man.
They got Doug and Hey Arnold episodes. All That sucked though. They should stop showing that.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
Guess some things don't get better with age.
No way you’re seriously 60….
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
Eric Hanna!
Vermont Cubs Fan - December 21, 2011
Go get Prince Fielder. Now.
Forget about rebuilding. I think we should concentrate on building. Go get the guy who is younger than Albert Pujols who you can build a team around for the next 3-4 years and brings some much needed thump to the lineup. The Cubs will sacrifice some defense with Fielder, but if he hits 30-40 bombs a year and the team wins I don’t think many people will care.
jeffmills1972 - December 20, 2011
Cubs/Fielder Sweepstakes
Ever wonder what could have happened.. If Jim Hendry didn’t sign Alfondo Sorino 2 that huge & overpriced price tag….boy where would the Cubs be right NOW…they keep trading the good players 4 junk in return…now with Hendry out of the way..& Theo in Charge at least there’s a ray of hope…Theo is just Patching things up til the following year or two..this team should be better.However it will not be a playoff team…the Wins will more but NOT good enough they may finish better then 4th place but not a last place team..Fielder more then likely will end up in TEXAS.or a American league team.Count out the Cubs in this race the scratch off tickets…maybe more affordable then the seating tickets this years
joker029 - December 20, 2011
Perhaps I spoke too soon.
A late contender for Rant of the Day.
daver - December 20, 2011
10 point of multiple periods
That’s equal to 8 rock skips on the pond. Nice.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
...
I like whiskey too.
bdlugz - December 20, 2011
I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin'.
daver - December 21, 2011
...
wrigleyrocker12 - December 20, 2011
Sounds about right.
daver - December 20, 2011
Theo hasn't overpaid
In an off-season full of reaches.
timh815 - December 20, 2011
Well, he could here for a short deal
5 years averaging $28M – $30M per year.
RiskyBusiness - December 20, 2011
I'm certain he has talked
with Fielder’s people. And I’m confident Theo has a number in mind. And some incentive clauses as well.
timh815 - December 20, 2011
Doesn't seem like anyone wants to give Fielder a 10-year deal.
So Scott Boras is likely going to have to back off his demand for one.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Seattle might reach at 8
timh815 - December 20, 2011
just felt two offseasons ago that jack z was a genius
jesus christos - December 20, 2011
I don't think Seattle has that kind of cash.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
They might not,
but they will have a hard time finessing a good record in the ALW going forward.
timh815 - December 20, 2011
Boras is looking at the Pujols deal.
Which means he has to want Fielder to sign in the AL, where teams could do a possible 8-yr deal with the DH.
In the NL, Kemp signed for 8 years and, as a Cfer, still can regress to RF, LF and 1B. There is no other position Fielder can digress to in the NL.
If Fielder signs in the NL, it will probably have to be for the 25-30 million a year mentioned above.
BucknerKongCardenal - December 20, 2011
I'm in favor of signing Fielder.
But if that’s all they do, Wrigley will still be empty in September. This team is bad, has immovable contracts, and has very few impact players in the minors who will be ready any time soon. The key is to figure out how to sustain that success. If the Cubs only cared about winning in the short term (like the previous regime) then Aramis Ramirez would still be a Cub. They’re not going to throw a ton of money at guys who will eventually weigh the payroll down and leave them with almost no flexibility going forward.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
Fielder would, at least, sell some tickets.
He’s a draw. Bryan LaHair isn’t.
Al Yellon - December 20, 2011
Sure, he'd sell some.
And before last season, I was with you in thinking this team had to sign him up to draw fans. But it seems like the philosophy has changed (and the team turned out worse than I expected, so just signing Fielder wouldn’t make this team a contender). So I think, as ballhawk has said, it depends on what Tom is willing to risk. Even if the casual fans bail, we know they’ll come back when the team gets good again. Personally, now that Hendry’s gone I’m much more interested in watching this team build itself back up. Last year was not that. Last year was just another year in a downward spiral. I know I’m not the only one who is taking that into account when buying tickets for 2012. I may not be interested in going to every game, but I’d think fans would rather watch a team on the field that is being built instead of one that everyone’s impatiently waiting to tear down.
shoemile - December 20, 2011
You make some valid points here
… about rebuilding, and I agree that building a strong organization is important.
But that doesn’t mean you do a total teardown and rebuild. TheoJed have even publicly stated you can do both building and trying to win every year.
That’s what I expect them to do.
Al Yellon - December 21, 2011
Agreed
No rule in baseball saying you can’t build a system and be compete at the MLB at the same time.
aaronb - December 21, 2011
Agree with you, Al.
Go get Fielder, but make sure it’s not for a full ten years. I don’t know if his body will hold up for ten years, or give him an opt-out clause.
Vermont Cubs Fan - December 21, 2011
So who's the best player
on the Cubs’ lineup now and what are all the glaring holes in the Cubs lineup?
ddoubleheader - December 21, 2011
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.