Poll: What should the Cubs do with Matt Garza?

Trade sounds good to me.

Kinda depends on the overall strategy. I’d rather they look to contend in ’13 or ’14 and Garza could be someone to extend in that case. But if contending in ’13 or ’14 requires trading him, that’s fine too. Obviously, if the plan is to contend in ’15 or ’16, then get him the fuck outta here.

[quote name=Suburban kid]Kinda depends on the overall strategy. I’d rather they look to contend in ’13 or ’14 and Garza could be someone to extend in that case. But if contending in ’13 or ’14 requires trading him, that’s fine too. Obviously, if the plan is to contend in ’15 or ’16, then get him the fuck outta here.[/quote]I’m not even sure it’s reasonable to contend in 2015 or 2016. I think there’s good reason to think the organization will be moving in that direction and contending will be around the corner. Maybe a breakout season or something helps them contend, but I think they’re a long way away. They have to build the farm system first. Theo has even said they need to have productive guys coming up with more just behind them. THEN they’ll invest big money on free agents. If they get a bigger haul for Garza then I expect then maybe it pushes it up a year.

[quote name=mb21]I’m not even sure it’s reasonable to contend in 2015 or 2016. I think there’s good reason to think the organization will be moving in that direction and contending will be around the corner. Maybe a breakout season or something helps them contend, but I think they’re a long way away. They have to build the farm system first. Theo has even said they need to have productive guys coming up with more just behind them. THEN they’ll invest big money on free agents. If they get a bigger haul for Garza then I expect then maybe it pushes it up a year.[/quote]
I wonder if the ownership would be patient enough to sit through all those years of likely reduced revenue. I would like to think that they planned to take the hit to get this franchise on the right path.

I have no handle as to what the Cubs are doing. Trade Garza for “assets.” Why not? Thing is, who’s going to pitch next year and give the team a realistic shot at anything?

I’m still all about getting Prince Fielder. If shedding salary and building around him for the next 6-7 years is an option, then I’m cool with that. Specs are just so hit-or-miss in general and to this organization (think Pie, Patterson, Prior), so I simply cannot get enthused accept for the trading/commodity aspects in bringing in bigger, more proven talent in moving them.

Another 90-loss season will be a grind to the fan base and potentially very devastating to this organization on many fronts in moving forward. Signing a guy like Fielder at least would show me the hand of optimism that I would need to see in changing direction for the future.

I think going after Fielder makes a lot of sense.

Bubbles wants no part of Kyle Drabek.. Buddy ran into him at a liqour store in Houston said he was fat as shit. Also he has heard stories about him being a drunk…

As far as Garza.. I see us getting a Latos type deal or extending.Why? Super friends are that good.

Nice article on GM Lingo

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/15744

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder] Garza gets to be a really eexpensive piece of a really mediocre team.“[/quote]Optimist

We lost Sam Fuld. That can never be undone.

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]If Garza brings back what we expect him to, isn’t that a tacit admission that the Garza deal was the wrong move to make when it was made? I mean the package we’re expecting in return is about what the Cubs gave up, no? It’s almost a pat on the head from Thoyer: “Nice try guys, but swapping prospects for 1-2 WAR upgrade when uou’re at 75 wins on paper and have been preaching to your fanbase that you want to build through he farm really isnt a wise piece of business. So we’regonna try and turn back the clock here before Garza gets to be a really eexpensive piece of a really mediocre team.”[/quote]I don’t think so. The Cubs weren’t trying to rebuild a year ago. This front office has made the decision that’s what they’re going to do and trading veterans makes sense. If you’re trying to win it doesn’t. The Blue Jays appear to be the most active team in pursuit of Garza and they’re a 4th place team who is going to contend with the likes of the Red Sox and Yankees by continuing to develop their own players. If the Cubs get 5 wins out of Garza and the same exact return then it was a great series of transactions. Name one team that wouldn’t take that deal. Even the Pirates would make those deals.

I’m still in the “keep him for now” camp. I think the Cubs should contend every year. I wasn’t in favor of the Garza deal when it was made, but I think it turned out to be a gamble the Cubs won. Trading him now for prospects would, in the long term, be another gamble. With good odds, maybe, but still a gamble. In the short term, though, it’s a certainty that it would make the Cubs suck more.

Maybe it’s not realistic to build a contender now, but I think the Cubs could come close without necessarily sacrificing the future. They’ve got the money, if we can ever figure out what expenses are.

I know it’s popular and makes sense to say that teams shouldn’t sign or acquire players when they don’t have a chance to win, but it’s not the reality of the situation. If it was, there would be significantly fewer veterans in the game because teams like the Royals, Pirates, Astros, Mariners and others would never consider signing a single veteran player. A win is a win regardless of whether or not you’re a 40-win team or a 90-win team. Unless Hak-Ju Lee turns out to be a very good ballplayer the Cubs got the better end of that trade. If the Cubs get the 5 wins they did from him in 2011 and then get the same amount in return that they gave up it was a very good trade.

We talked about it a lot on ACB, but the biggest mistake the Cubs made was not choosing a direction after the 2009 season. In order to contend in 2010 they had to increase payroll. I know it’s easier said than done, but that was the only way they could contend and with money coming off the books it could have been a short-term increase. If they weren’t going in that direction they should have started trading their valuable players at which point they could have gotten a lot in return. They did neither. I know it was that decision that most irritate myself and MO with regards to new ownership. Pick a fucking plan. They didn’t and now they’re trying to trade a couple valuable players and a bunch of shit in an attempt to rebuild. Won’t be easy.

I guess my philosophy is, a team with the Cubs’ budget should always have a plan for competing now AND a plan for competing in the future. I don’t think there’s any excuse not to have both. Well, except for the fact that the Cubs really suck right now. But I think it’s a cop out to just completely give up on the season before it starts. Trading Garza would appear to be essentially waving the white flag. Maybe not, but that’s how I would interpret it initially. If I’m wrong about the team’s financial flexibility, then I’d definitely trade him, though.

I don’t think you’re wrong about the financial flexibility, AC. I think you might be underestimating how fucked this organization is. Or maybe I’m overestimating it.

I think if the Cubs trade Garza to Boston, Jeff Baker goes with. Bosox just traded their RF. Maybe they want Byrd. I’ll revise my plan; Cubs traded entire roster minus Castro, Cashner for Youkilis and that announcer with the thick Boston accent.

I should be running this team. I have alot of killer ideas.

I always get Banuelos and Betances confused. Which one is supposed to be the one who can actually stick in a ML rotation, and which one is projected as more of a reliever?

Betances gives up less hits and strikes out more people and walks more people as well. I’d take a chance on a guy like him vs Banuelos who is giving up a hit per IP and still walking a ton of people

[quote name=dylanj]I’ll take Montero straight up (dying laughing).[/quote]
ageed, LSA +1, Nambla, ricketts interview part 7

I would love it if the Cubs got a cheap, long-term masher this offseason. Maybe that Cuban dude can be the one, I think they’re getting him.

If its the Yankees I want Montero and thats it. I dont care if thats all we get thats a fair trade imho.

B-Ref’s front page has a tally of team payrolls so far and estimates for 2012:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/

[quote name=dylanj]Mariano Rivera called Banuelos the greatest prospect he has ever seen so maybe he’s vying for a job as an agent or Yankees front office guy when he retires at age 57.[/quote].

Another article about the awesomeness of Edgar Martinez:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-great-was-edgar-martinezs-bat/

[quote name=GBTS]If Theo knows what Matt Garza did last year inside the manual scoreboard, he’ll definitely be traded.[/quote]That might explain the one game where the score was 420 to 69.

[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint].[/quote]I can’t argue with you today.

[quote name=Rice Cube]Another article about the awesomeness of Edgar Martinez:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-great-was-edgar-martinezs-bat//quoteI may be alone in this, but I don’t think Edgar belongs in the HOF. He was so bad at fielding that he couldn’t play it. He was a poor baserunner. He was a double play machine (-20 runs in his career). A great hitter and he was quite valuable. He made up for his uselessness elsewhere by being awesome at the plate, but my HOF players would be way more balanced than Edgar was.

I didn’t agree a few years ago, but the same arguments can be made regarding Mark McGwire. At leas the played the field.

[quote name=Rice Cube]I can’t argue with you today.[/quote]
Because your team lost to mine last night?

[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Because your team lost to mine last night?[/quote]I didn’t actually expect Cal to win to be honest. Especially because they liked giving the ball back to Texas all the time.

[quote name=Rice Cube]Seems that Yankees fans would be more displeased if NYY gave up prospects for Garza than the Reds fans were about the Marshall trade.[/quote]
Garza would immediately be their 2nd best starter. I don’t think they’ll be able to piece it together with Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, and Ivan Nova the way they were last year. Plus AJ Burnett really blows now. I’d suggest swapping him for Soriano. The Yankees need pitchers until Banuelos and Betances get there. I bet they sign Roy Oswalt or Hiroki Kuroda, but I’d be fine with them overpaying for Garza (dying laughing)

[quote name=dylanj]my money is on Garza to Det for Jacob Turner and prospects[/quote]
that will do

Turner, Andy Oliver and Castellanos

I’d extend Garza with a deal similar to the one Danks received.

In 2-3 years when the Cubs are in a position to compete ( and I personally think this is the timefram), they’ll be looking for pitchers just like Garza.

[quote name=Rice Cube]I didn’t actually expect Cal to win to be honest.[/quote]
You know you thought they’d win in the early second quarter. I thought they would too.

[quote name=Rice Cube]Especially because Texas liked taking the ball from us all the time.[/quote].

[quote name=GW]based on what? do you think they are going after the fielder? the cubans?[/quote]
Based on a normal timeframe for teams with money to rebuild a ML roster. I’m not talking about the entire organization, but I think it’s reasonable to expect the Cubs to be fielding good teams by then. It’s my own speculation and not based on anything specific

JIm Callis:

Like them both, but they’re yrs away. @miguelbenitez1: with all the Garza/#Jays talk what are your thoughts on Snydergaard & Nicolino?

[quote name=mb21]I may be alone in this, but I don’t think Edgar belongs in the HOF. He was so bad at fielding that he couldn’t play it. He was a poor baserunner. He was a double play machine (-20 runs in his career). A great hitter and he was quite valuable. He made up for his uselessness elsewhere by being awesome at the plate, but my HOF players would be way more balanced than Edgar was.

I didn’t agree a few years ago, but the same arguments can be made regarding Mark McGwire. At leas the played the field.[/quote]Not sure that I agree, but there’s something to be said for this view. Fangraphs only has his baserunning stats for his final 3 years, but he cost his team a whopping 17 runs on the bases in that short time. The number of runs he cost over his career could be truly staggering (even accounting for the likelihood that he wasn’t as bad in his prime).

[quote name=Mish]What would you say about guys like Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith, Hall of Famers with OPS+ < 100? They are basically in there for one dimension of their games…[/quote]Well, Brooks’ OPS+ is actually 104. Both Brooks and Ozzie were very useful offensive players when you take position (and in Ozzie’s case, baserunning) into account. Both have a career oWAR of over 40 (that is, WAR only taking offense and position adjustment into account, ignoring defensive stats).

[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]They have too much money for it to take 5 years. Even if they don’t sign a major FA this year, they’re getting a ton of money off the books this year and next. I expect them to throw a nice chunk at Soler, and maybe the older Cuban too, because the IFA rules are changing next year. Once they get rid of Zambrano and Dempster, I think they’ll be ready to add a couple more long term contracts if necessary, and I don’t expect Soriano to be on the team in 2013, even if that means he’s released.[/quote]
don’t get me wrong, i think they could, but all the signs seem to be pointing in the other direction. I think keeping garza makes a ton of sense if they plan to compete again in 2-3 years, yet they have been aggressively trying to dump him all offseason. cespedes would be a good indicator in the opposite direction (but not soler), as would credible fielder pursuit rumors

[quote name=Mish]What would you say about guys like Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith, Hall of Famers with OPS+ < 100? They are basically in there for one dimension of their games...[/quote]Ozzie wasn't a good hitter, but he wasn't bad either. Edgar was such a bad fielder he couldn't even be asked to play a terrible 1st base. I love the DH. I hope the NL gets one at some point, but for me, the bar is raised for a DH getting into the HOF. Edgar just doesn't come close to that bar for me.

I don’t think Brooks Robinson should be in the HOF.

[quote name=mb21]Ozzie wasn’t a good hitter, but he wasn’t bad either. Edgar was such a bad fielder he couldn’t even be asked to play a terrible 1st base. I love the DH. I hope the NL gets one at some point, but for me, the bar is raised for a DH getting into the HOF. Edgar just doesn’t come close to that bar for me.

I don’t think Brooks Robinson should be in the HOF.[/quote]
Edgar is somewhere near 67+ WAR, right? I think that, given his peak, is enough for me. I’m not as concerned with how multi-faceted his value was. He would have the most substantial DH time of any HOFer (I think Molitor is around 43%). I assume Frank Thomas would clear your hurdle?

[quote name=GW]I don’t see it. Seems like they are waiting on free agents until they can supplement the homegrown talent, and the homegrown talent either sucks or is nowhere near ready.[/quote]That’s the same way I feel about it. I really don’t think the Cubs will see contention for at least 5 years. I suppose they could get lucky, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

[quote name=Mish]Edgar is somewhere near 67+ WAR, right? I think that, given his peak, is enough for me. I’m not as concerned with how multi-faceted his value was. He would have the most substantial DH time of any HOFer (I think Molitor is around 43%). I assume Frank Thomas would clear your hurdle?[/quote]He’s another one I wouldn’t vote for, but I think he has a better case than Edgar does.

[quote name=ACT]To put it another way, if Brooks and Ozzie were both average defenders, they still would have been very good players (though not HOF-ers).[/quote]I agree with this. They weren’t one dimensional players.

Regarding Brooks, he’s just not someone I would vote for, but that’s based only on stats.

[quote name=GW]don’t get me wrong, i think they could, but all the signs seem to be pointing in the other direction. I think keeping garza makes a ton of sense if they plan to compete again in 2-3 years, yet they have been aggressively trying to dump him all offseason. cespedes would be a good indicator in the opposite direction (but not soler), as would credible fielder pursuit rumors[/quote]Yeah, trading Garza means you don’t have much intention of contending in the next 3 to 5 years. I can’t get over Theo’s comment about needing a farm system that is developing impact talent on a year basis and THEN investing in free agents. I think he told us on Day One that this team wasn’t contending for 5 years.

Take the 2009 Draft as an example. The Cubs grabbed Brett Jackson in the 1st round and he was a 3-year college player. It’s 3 years later and he’s likely to begin the year in AAA. The guys they drafted in 2011 were mostly high school players (the top shelf talent anyway). These guys are 4 years away at the very least. They don’t have much other than Jackson until that draft class is close to ready.

[quote name=mb21]That’s the same way I feel about it. I really don’t think the Cubs will see contention for at least 5 years. I suppose they could get lucky, but I wouldn’t bet on it.[/quote]THat’s the likelihood but I think they are looking at 2013/14. The goal now is to restock the farm system(Hoyer/McLeoud did in 2 years while in SD) and look at adding FA where necessary/possible.

[quote name=mb21]Yeah, trading Garza means you don’t have much intention of contending in the next 3 to 5 years. I can’t get over Theo’s comment about needing a farm system that is developing impact talent on a year basis and THEN investing in free agents. I think he told us on Day One that this team wasn’t contending for 5 years.

Take the 2009 Draft as an example. The Cubs grabbed Brett Jackson in the 1st round and he was a 3-year college player. It’s 3 years later and he’s likely to begin the year in AAA. The guys they drafted in 2011 were mostly high school players (the top shelf talent anyway). These guys are 4 years away at the very least. They don’t have much other than Jackson until that draft class is close to ready.[/quote]
this.

[quote name=JMan]THat’s the likelihood but I think they are looking at 2013/14. The goal now is to restock the farm system(Hoyer/McLeoud did in 2 years while in SD) and look at adding FA where necessary/possible.[/quote]I hope you’re right. That would make me happy, but I’ll be surprised.

If the top prospects from last year didn’t melt this past season I might see 2014 as a realistic year they could contend, but 16 or 18 of the top 10 on Sickels’ list had shitty seasons. Most of them were unworthy of being in a top prospects lists and most of them now shouldn’t even qualify. 2011 was the worst year I’ve seen Cubs prospects have since I started following them almost a decade ago. Even the breakout candidate they had early on ended up having TJS.

[quote name=mb21]If the top prospects from last year didn’t melt this past season I might see 2014 as a realistic year they could contend, but 16 or 18 of the top 10 on Sickels’ list had shitty seasons. Most of them were unworthy of being in a top prospects lists and most of them now shouldn’t even qualify. 2011 was the worst year I’ve seen Cubs prospects have since I started following them almost a decade ago. Even the breakout candidate they had early on ended up having TJS.[/quote]It’s a way of (L)ife.

[quote name=mb21]Brooks played a hell of a lot longer than Santo did and he played without diabetes.[/quote]Yup. But I don’t care about what-if scenarios. Brooks helped his team by staying healthy and getting a ton of at-bats.

[quote name=ACT]Yup. But I don’t care about what-if scenarios. Brooks helped his team by staying healthy and getting a ton of at-bats.[/quote]That’s true. I’m not arguing he wasn’t a valuable player. He was. He was a very, very good ballplayer, but he wouldn’t be in my HOF.

[quote name=mb21](dying laughing) …of the top 20[/quote]So the Cubs have half-prospects now?

Some of these reclamation projects might work out too. I’m not saying that Stewart or Corpas or DeJesus are going to end up being long-term members of the team, but some of them could be. The Cubs are in the position now of going after these guys the market is undervaluing and throwing a bunch of shit against the wall to see what sticks. If they pan out, great and they can possibly be a part of the rebuild. If not, no big deal.

Maybe they never find another Ryan Dempster, but if they do, it could speed up the rebuild process. If they can put a halfway decent team together just by piecing together value players amongst the few guys from the Cubs system that might be worth a damn in the next couple of years, the Cubs have the money to go and supplement with some better talent free agents.

I don’t think Tom Ricketts can be on board with a full 5 year rebuild. I don’t think even he is so delusional as to think that people are going to continue playing Red Sox/Yankee prices for 60-70 wins a year. Cubs fans are stupid, but part of what got people out to Wrigley when the team sucked was that it was halfway affordable. That isn’t true anymore.

I like that they aren’t just slapping some easy fixes together by tossing money around because they can, but the fact remains that they do have the money and they can use it as their competitive advantage against the rest of the division.

I like that they aren’t just slapping some easy fixes together by tossing money around because they can, but the fact remains that they do have the money and they can use it as their competitive advantage against the rest of the division.

This is important, but you have to have a solid core for that to be effective. As we’ve seen, you need productive players making small amounts of money for it to pay off to go after high priced free agents. What I just don’t see is a core of talent that is going to enable the Cubs to do that any time soon.

Castro is a good player and should improve, but this is his last year at league minimum. If we accept they won’t contend this year or even next year, we’re looking at Castro making $5-10 million in 2014 and more after that. Hopefully Brett Jackson pans out. Maybe Trey McNutt can have a rebound season, but other than those 3, there’s really no cheap core to build around. And Castro won’t be cheap much longer.

I disagree on Cespedes, mb. A few years ago when Chapman came over from Cuba, we all complained that the Cubs didn’t at least take a risk on him. The Reds got him for 6/30M. Sure, he could have been a bust, and may only turn out to be a somewhat elite LH reliever (thats more the Reds fault tho), but over a 6 year term (his peak) that’s the kind of risk big market clubs should be taking. If they get him for 45M, that’s a 7.5M AAV. He’d only have to be league average to be worth more than his contract, and if like some scout believe, he can stick in CF, that should be easy. He of course could bust and look like Tyler Colvin, but that’s a risk big market clubs should use their advantage to take. In part because you rarely if ever find players with that high a ceiling who are that close to ML. Start him in AAA, or if 2012 is a lost year, let him play everyday in LF and make his adjustments. It just seems like 3 years ago when Chapman floated up on the inner-tube, everyone was singing a different tune.

[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Padres beat writer being summarized on MLBTR.[/quote]Who on earth would the Rays want from CHC?

Perhaps Barney? Seeing as they are supposedly interested in Theriot?

I dont really want to trade Garza since i think he is a player winning teams keep but it might be necesarry to bring back the required talent.

If i could choose any package i would go with Jesus montero. That is who i wantmore than anything

[quote name=Suburban kid]Who on earth would the Rays want from CHC?

Perhaps Barney? Seeing as they are supposedly interested in Theriot?[/quote]What about Soto?

I also kinda agree with MB about Cespedes. I do want to invest myself (i want to win damnit!!!) But if he did those numbers in America we would all say the same shit that he was too old for his competition. Howeve if Theo and Hoyer want him I will blindly trust them

[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I was thinking Soto[/quote]Yeah this. Catcher, MIF, and 1B are the only spots they really need, and they could probably live with Rodriguez as one of those infielders (if just for his glove). I guess they need a DH but I don’t see them looking at any Cubs players in that regard. They don’t need starters and I doubt they would overvalue someone like Marmol.

[quote name=Suburban kid]Have any Cubs beat writers done any work at all since the dawn of time?
[/quote]
No.

[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I disagree on Cespedes, mb. A few years ago when Chapman came over from Cuba, we all complained that the Cubs didn’t at least take a risk on him. The Reds got him for 6/30M. Sure, he could have been a bust, and may only turn out to be a somewhat elite LH reliever (thats more the Reds fault tho), but over a 6 year term (his peak) that’s the kind of risk big market clubs should be taking. If they get him for 45M, that’s a 7.5M AAV. He’d only have to be league average to be worth more than his contract, and if like some scout believe, he can stick in CF, that should be easy. He of course could bust and look like Tyler Colvin, but that’s a risk big market clubs should use their advantage to take. In part because you rarely if ever find players with that high a ceiling who are that close to ML. Start him in AAA, or if 2012 is a lost year, let him play everyday in LF and make his adjustments. It just seems like 3 years ago when Chapman floated up on the inner-tube, everyone was singing a different tune.[/quote]Aroldis Chapman was 21 year old while Cespedes is 26. Chapman was going to sign for about $25 to $30 million while the numbers being rumored for Cespedes range from $50 to $60 million. If the price drops to $30 million then I’m fine with it. I’d like them to go after Soler, but I want nothing to do with a guy who will be making nearly $10 million per year and has never played a game higher than A ball.

[quote name=Mish]Yeah this. Catcher, MIF, and 1B are the only spots they really need[/quote]Then it’s gotta be Bryan LaHair. (dying laughing)

Sounds to me like this Swaim guy is a fraud.

[quote name=JMan]Weren’t the rays rumored tongue interes in Soriano if the cubs essentially paid all but a few million of his freight? He has value as a DH due to his power.[/quote]
Autocorrect or the kinkiest post every happened to this blog.

[quote name=Rice Cube]Autocorrect or the kinkiest post every happened to this blog.[/quote]Or just outing the entire Rays front office.

hoyer and wife had a baby: namerd it beckett.

Love it Mish… Love it…

[quote name=Mish]Compensation for Theo.[/quote]Compensation = firstborn child? (dying laughing)

In the near future the Cubs might have Castro, Jackson, McNutt and maybe one or two guys they trade for. That’s best case scenario. Is that good enough?

That’s probably not best case scenario. Best case scenario is more than a few of their value reclamation projects become useful members of the team – like DeJesus becoming a 3-4 win player for a few years.

So it is going to take luck, but that can happen if they put the pieces together smartly and don;t fall in love with their lucky teams. I’ve gotten so used to the Cubs doing stupid shit like giving Gaetti the starting 3rd baseman job based on his lucky 2nd half of ’98 that I actually cringe when a guy like Reed Johnson shows up and starts to actually perform above expectations. I don’t worry as much that will happen with the Cubs. I expect some of these guys will outperform their lowered projections, and the Superfriends will know when to sell high, thus turning some of these veteran pieces into younger pieces along the way of being halfway watchable.

I’m not saying it will be easy, or that a certain amount of luck won’t be involved, but these Cubs may take some good luck at the table and cash out, while Hendry would keep letting it ride on black 17.

(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)

Is anyone watching the Baylor-Washington bowl?

Someone should remind the Big 12 that there is also a part of football entitled “defense”

/SEC fan

Mb, I agree with you that the Cubs might not have a foundation for sustained success until 2016 or 2017. But to say the ML roster won’t be contending until then might be a little off.

[quote name=Rodrigo]Mb, I agree with you that the Cubs might not have a foundation for sustained success until 2016 or 2017. But to say the ML roster won’t be contending until then might be a little off.[/quote]I realize now I wasn’t clear earlier and haven’t been all offseason, but that’s what I’m talking about. We’ve been Cubs fans for a long time and we’ve seen this organization reach the playoffs periodically. There’s no reason to think that won’t continue, but I’m focusing on how long it’s going to take them to reach the stated goal (annual contention).

[quote name=mb21]This is where people will say that I hate prospects, but most of them fail. I’m sure I’m going to be excited by what they get in return, but it’s important to remember that what they do get in return is likely to fail. I’d say we can hope at least one of them is a 3-win player for at least a few years, but I wouldn’t say at least 1 of them. I would say 1 of them being that good is unlikely.[/quote]I think most fans realize that, but hey, you gotta start somewhere.

Bulls win!

[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Someone should remind the Big 12 that there is also a part of football entitled “defense”

/SEC fan[/quote]
Someone like Cal?

Next year, I’ll put Texas’ defense up against any in the SEC.

I’m really looking forward to the next month in review; the first two were hilarious.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/is-byrd-the-word-for-washington/

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder][/quote]Probably one of the dwarfs. Judging by the size of the box, I’d say Stubby.

Whose long-term health and performance is more difficult to project at this point: Fielder’s or the economy’s?

[quote name=Rice Cube]
FUCK…my head hurts.[/quote]Dehydration can cause that.

[quote name=Rice Cube]Amazingly, there is still water in Lake Michigan.[/quote]I think something like 25% of the world’s freshwater is in the Great Lakes. And since those calculations look like they’re for total water and not freshwater, I’d say we should have dried up before Jesus came.

[quote name=AndCounting]I think something like 25% of the world’s freshwater is in the Great Lakes. And since those calculations look like they’re for total water and not freshwater, I’d say we should have dried up before Jesus came.[/quote]It’s worse than that. Did you know that other animals besides humans drink water?

[quote name=ACT]It’s worse than that. Did you know that other animals besides humans drink water?[/quote]Yes, but they don’t use toilets. That’s where the real water gets used up.

Merry Christmas, photoshoppers:

[quote name=AndCounting]Whose long-term health and performance is more difficult to project at this point: Fielder’s or the economy’s?[/quote](dying laughing) I think the next few years are relatively easy to project for Fielder so I’d say the economy. After that it might be Fielder.

[quote name=26.2cubsfan]Just got a letter from the Cubs inviting me to select my 2012 season ticket seats. I honestly forgot I signed up on the wait list. I’m guessing it was somewhere around 2004…

How they found my new address is a whole different question.[/quote]It’s pretty amazing how quickly they are burning through that list. It used to be easier to get a table at Trotter’s than to get a call from the Cubs about season tix. Not so sure that’s the case any more.

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]And let’s not even mention the unfathomable question of where the Silva money is going.[/quote]I heard it could be going to Washington.

[quote name=26.2cubsfan]Gotta be the pricing – when tickets were cheaper people didn’t mind paying about 81x face value, even if they couldn’t make all the games. $3,800 for upper deck box seats? I can see how someone would decline renewals, especially if you have multiple tickets. I shudder to think what the nicer seats run.[/quote]Well, the pricing relative to the on-field product. People are willing to pay a premium for a product they can enjoy. Much less so for a mediocre-to-bad product. Not mention that the venue is closer to some Roman gladitorial shithole than a modern sports venue.

You want me to pay 4 grand to sit in a crumbling urine-soaked relic and watch Ian fucking Stewart bumble around 3B and Darwin Barney make Koyie Hill look like Hank Greenburg? No thanks.

But my tune just might change if you can at least give me some indication I could be sitting in that urine-soaked relic in late October. The Cubs problem seems to be they think because the team owners are so fucking agog over the urine-soaked relic, that they can just wave the urine-soaked relic in people’s faces and then those people will pay them 4 grand just for the privilege of sitting in that fucking heap. But the truth is that given the current state of the team and the current state of the economy, many more people are disinclined to succumb to the medieval charm of Wrigley Field.

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Well, the pricing relative to the on-field product. People are willing to pay a premium for a product they can enjoy. Much less so for a mediocre-to-bad product. Not mention that the venue is closer to some Roman gladitorial shithole than a modern sports venue.

You want me to pay 4 grand to sit in a crumbling urine-soaked relic and watch Ian fucking Stewart bumble around 3B and Darwin Barney make Koyie Hill look like Hank Greenburg? No thanks.

But my tune just might change if you can at least give me some indication I could be sitting in that urine-soaked relic in late October. The Cubs problem seems to be they think because the team owners are so fucking agog over the urine-soaked relic, that they can just wave the urine-soaked relic in people’s faces and then those people will pay them 4 grand just for the privilege of sitting in that fucking heap. But the truth is that given the current state of the team and the current state of the economy, many more people are disinclined to succumb to the medieval charm of Wrigley Field.[/quote]The secondary market has to be a big factor, too. It’s not just the experience. Having season tickets used to be worth real money, too. This past season, season ticket holders who wanted to pawn their tickets off on StubHub might as well have been selling houses in downtown Gary.

A couple of Cubans:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2011/12/cubs-sign-cuban-prospects-yasiel-balaguert-carlos-martinez/

Balaguert, who turns 19 on Jan. 9, has modest tools, a strong, thick-bodied frame (6 feet, 190 pounds) that he will have to keep in check and shows occasional average power with a quick bat and good extension. Several scouts have said he’ll have to continue to make adjustments to get to his power in games because of a long, uppercut swing from the right side and an aggressive, pull-oriented approach that leaves him susceptible to secondary stuff.

Martinez, 20, played for the Industriales in Cuba’s Serie Nacional in 2009-2010, when according to Baseball America’s records he had a 5.48 ERA in 23 innings with 19 strikeouts and 23 walks as a reliever. He has a thick-bodied frame at around 6-foot-4, 215 pounds with a fastball that parks in the low 90s. His breaking ball needs work, as at his best scouts have seen him flash an average curveball but it often gets slurvy, while his changeup is also a work in progress with occasional fade.

Sorry to hear about your daughter, mb

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/01/man-hires-prostitute-and-his-daughter-turns-up-115875-23600938/

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Sounds like an excellent addition to the Tyoshahason Hoffolvinoegerbois continuum.[/quote]
You were squinting when you typed that, weren’t you?

[quote name=AndCounting]And as far as the Cubs are concerned, they don’t really feel it. Since their primary customers (STHs) are also sellers, it takes them quite awhile to be hurt by the dip in the market. It’s just that the secondary market has now become the primary market, more or less. But if they suck for another couple of years, the waiting list could evaporate, paid attendance will drop, and prices will have to as well. But they’re one pennant race away from rebuilding the reserves, I think.[/quote]
I think this is right. It’s just strange to think about how recession-proof the Cubs ticket market seems to be. They have a dip in STH renewals, the secondary market collapses and they manage to make up the difference by selling single market tix without a markdown. Baffling.

Using the math that Scott Boras does, the Cubs attendance would be about 4.2 million in 2018 if they signed Fielder. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/prince-fielder-agent-scott-boras-taking-time-finding-right-deal-for-superstar-free-agent-slugger-hot-stove-122811

Since that’s not possible, I’m thinking the Cubs should get a massive discount.

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think this is right. It’s just strange to think about how recession-proof the Cubs ticket market seems to be. They have a dip in STH renewals, the secondary market collapses and they manage to make up the difference by selling single market tix without a markdown. Baffling.[/quote]
As long as that wait list exists and they can fill the gaps left by people giving up their seats, they will sell about 2.1 million tickets every year before they even sell one single game ticket. That is their buffer and they are exploiting it now to get the time they need to rebuild. The problem is they are now two years into pissing everyone off and about 2 months into the actual rebuild.

[quote name=mb21]The Cubs cut the cost of the ticket slightly for next year. In my opinion that tells us more than anything else about what the Cubs think their attendance is likely to be. They don’t expect much of a drop and have adjusted the pricing so they could have the same revenue.[/quote]
Not all tickets. Just the bleachers and the corners up in the 500 level and maybe some of the sections way under the upper deck. Basically, the seats that didn’t sell last year and are least owned by season ticket holders.

Plus, I don’t even think the cut was across the board, they lowered a few games to their lower tier of pricing, but I think they raised the highest profile games, so the net gain/loss by their “best customers” is right around zero.

[quote name=AndCounting]You have to assume Marlon Byrd would win the MVP, too, if he could hit in front of Fielder.[/quote]
You’d have to give that award to Carlos Silva, though.

[quote name=ACT]While they’re at it, they should look for a fielder and a baserunner.[/quote](dying laughing)

[quote name=mb21]We’re interested in Ryan Theriot, but we’re looking for a hitter, fielder and baserunner first. — Walt Jockety (dying laughing)[/quote]It’s like they’re trying to make sure the last kid picked doesn’t feel too bad.

[quote name=mb21]It’s almost like they’re trying to pay him less than league minimum.

Hey, Ryan, we’d really like to add you, but you suck at most everything that we typically pay players to do. Would you pay us to come work here?[/quote]If that’s the case it sounds like the best Theriot can hope for is a minor league deal with an invite to spring training.

[quote name=Rice Cube]The Pinstripe Bowl is being played in Yankee Stadium (just flipped around and found it on the interwebs). It must be nice to accurately measure a baseball stadium to ensure a football field will fit and be able to use both of the end zones.[/quote].

It doesn’t fit that way. Apparently the only way a football field would fit at Wrigley was the way they put it for the NU game or the way the Bears used to have it configured up the left field line. They couldn’t do it the way t he Bears had it because they lost some field space since the days when they did that in their renovations, so they had to do it along the right field line.

It fit, but the Big Ten got scared about player safety having the back of the end zone as a brick wall, hence the playing one way thing they did.

[quote name=Aisle424]It doesn’t fit that way. .[/quote]TWSS

[quote name=Aisle424]It doesn’t fit that way. Apparently the only way a football field would fit at Wrigley was the way they put it for the NU game or the way the Bears used to have it configured up the left field line. They couldn’t do it the way t he Bears had it because they lost some field space since the days when they did that in their renovations, so they had to do it along the right field line.

It fit, but the Big Ten got scared about player safety having the back of the end zone as a brick wall, hence the playing one way thing they did.[/quote]
The diagram above probably isn’t completely accurate then. I could see how that would affect plays to the back corners of each end zone as the guys would either slam into the brick wall or fall into the dugouts (dying laughing)

[quote name=Suburban kid]TWSS[/quote]FLAGGED

[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Depends. Do you own firearms?[/quote].

Detroit looking at Garza. Time to go shopping!

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/10/30/2525941/detroit-tigers-top-20-prospects-for-2012

[quote name=Aisle424]It doesn’t fit that way. Apparently the only way a football field would fit at Wrigley was the way they put it for the NU game or the way the Bears used to have it configured up the left field line. They couldn’t do it the way t he Bears had it because they lost some field space since the days when they did that in their renovations, so they had to do it along the right field line.

It fit, but the Big Ten got scared about player safety having the back of the end zone as a brick wall, hence the playing one way thing they did.[/quote]How does it not fit having one end zone near home and the other out in CF? The alleys are what, 368? I’d think they could fit one in, but maybe I’m an idiot.

By the way, that’ll be the last of the serious questions today. One is enough.

^ Yeah, they would probably have maybe a millimeter of space between the corners of each end zone and the boundaries if they didn’t knock out a wall or section.

You’d think someone would have actually measured the field before they scheduled the game and did all the paperwork.

If you look at the field when the actual football field is on it, you can see it wouldn’t fit if it was pivoted to go from home to CF. From dugout to dugout is just not wide enough.

I’m amazed they played NFL games there for as long as they did.

[quote name=Rice Cube]

Where would Al have sat then?[/quote]

http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/15026009031/top-ten-facebook-reactions-to-the-onion-of-2011-part-i

new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/is-brett-jackson-the-best-outfielder-on-the-cubs.html

[quote name=mb21]By the way, that’ll be the last of the serious questions today. One is enough.[/quote]don;t tell me what not to do