Seems to me if you can't spend the money on prospects then you spend the money on major leaguers.

the Cubs expected to spend more than $20 million on over-slot talent deep in the draft — as Epstein and Hoyer had in Boston and San Diego before. But MLB capped the Cubs’ draft allotment at less than $9 million — under penalty of lost future picks. And limits on international signings went into effect in July, just after they inked Jorge Soler to that nine-year, $30 million deal.

I'm sure it's true that they didn't expect the Cubs to have to play by the same rules as every other team, but that's not a terribly sympathetic argument...

Seems to me if you can't spend the money on prospects then you spend the money on major leaguers.

Yup. The Cubs have to leverage their advantages, and now they really can't do it without significant spending on the MLB payroll. I am interested in how far they can push this - would it be possible to trade for a good player on a bad contract, eat the contract and trade him for prospects? You'd be pushing up against the bounds of Selig-approval, but it seems like a game they should try to push as much as they can.

It'll be interesting to see how they adjust this season. The level playing field in amateur acquisitions really hurts deep-pocketed rebuilding clubs. They're going to need a new model.

The level playing field in amateur acquisitions really hurts deep-pocketed rebuilding clubs. They're going to need a new model.

They're going to need a new commissioner.

They need to find some ####### pitching. They essentially neglected the major league team until the trade deadline, and then brought in a collection of AAA arms. If the talent in Iowa is lacking, then go spend some money and get some real MLB pitchers. They are the Cubs, not the Royals. I should never have to suffer through seeing Chris Volstead in a Cubs uniform starting again.

Well, you could also get better at scouting -- I mean, Mike Trout didn't slide to 25 on signability, did he?

Yup. The Cubs have to leverage their advantages, and now they really can't do it without significant spending on the MLB payroll. I am interested in how far they can push this - would it be possible to trade for a good player on a bad contract, eat the contract and trade him for prospects? You'd be pushing up against the bounds of Selig-approval, but it seems like a game they should try to push as much as they can.

I'm not against spending Ricketts' money by any stretch... but I just think it needs to be a planned fashion, not a "best guy available at whatever it costs" fashion. I have confidence that Thed will do just that.

The cupboard right now isn't bare -- they have legitimate plus players at SS and 1B, even if Castro stalls out right where he is. Both are years under 25. Both are under team control for another, what... 5 years?

What they desperately need is pitching... which is problematic because that's usually the riskiest sort of spend there is. Other than Greinke, there's just not a lot out there I'd be interested in at the top of the market...

If somebody gave me decent odds I'd put 10 bucks down right now on the Cubs losing more games next year than they did this year.

Soriano is going to be a year older, Barney is still going to be Barney, the Cubs have no third baseman, their RF'er is meh and would be a year older, Castro isn't a superstar, Rizzo is Lyle Overbay, no CF'er, no bullpen, Garza will get traded, and not much else one the team besides a hopefully good Castillo and BPJ coming back as a starter again.

“We’re trying to be honest with [the fans]. There might be some tough things we have to tell them along the way. There might be another trade deadline in our future where we trade away about 40 percent of a really good rotation.’’

Well, that's good to know. We went 61-101 for absolutely no reason in 2012 and we might go 61-101 in 2013 or 2014.

But, hey, at least he's honest!!!

The cupboard right now isn't bare -- they have legitimate plus players at SS and 1B

Too early to say that about Rizzo. 119 OPS+ isn't bad, but it's certainly no guarantee he's a plus 1B.

By their own accounts, the Cubs expected to spend more than $20 million on over-slot talent deep in the draft — as Epstein and Hoyer had in Boston and San Diego before.

I'm not sure the Sox ever cleared 12M in total draft spending, not much more than that anyway. Pretty sure the Padres never did.

McLeod had a great reputation in Boston and I think the overall productivity of his drafts will end up being quite good in comparison to the draft slots available, but not necessarily all that impressive in comparison to the amount of money spent. He has always been described by Epstein as an excellent talent evaluator, but minus the money advantage I don't think the emprical case that we can make as outsiders is all that compelling.

“We’re trying to be honest with [the fans]. There might be some tough things we have to tell them along the way. There might be another trade deadline in our future where we trade away about 40 percent of a really good rotation.’’

Well, that's good to know. We went 61-101 for absolutely no reason in 2012 and we might go 61-101 in 2013 or 2014.

But, hey, at least he's honest!!!

The cupboard right now isn't bare -- they have legitimate plus players at SS and 1B

Too early to say that about Rizzo. 119 OPS+ isn't bad, but it's certainly no guarantee he's a plus 1B.

Re Soriano: What you do with a guy who's had big years and has a very tough contact to move is, you don't doom and gloom and piss and whine, you work into your projections the distinct (though far short of certain) possibility that he's going to have a nice year. Epatein failed to do this, and thus wasted very good LF production.

Well, that's good to know. We went 61-101 for absolutely no reason in 2012 and we might go 61-101 in 2013 or 2014.

And you get to play the Astros only three times next year.

They need to find some ####### pitching

Want Dempster back? :)

There was talk that he will sign with the Cubs this offseason.

Re Soriano: What you do with a guy who's had big years and has a very tough contact to move is, you don't doom and gloom and piss and whine, you work into your projections the distinct (though far short of certain) possibility that he's going to have a nice year. Epatein failed to do this, and thus wasted very good LF production.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. Are you saying that Epstein should have tried to throw together a contender last offseason purely on the off-chance that Soriano would play well?

Well, that's good to know. We went 61-101 for absolutely no reason in 2012

There's one excellent reason for it: a great draft pick. Growing up the Cubs delivered a long string of 77-85 ballclubs that weren't good enough to contend but weren't bad enough to snag a top 5 draft pick either. It seemed pointless back then.

Now their predecessors weren't idiots. 100 loss seasons were avoided precisely because they wanted to avoid having to face the sorts of questions from the fans and media that Theo and Jed face now. But if the goal is for the Cubs to contend for a title within six years or so, this is the right course of action given what was on hand to begin with. It's ugly, but there was little shot at immediate contention with a different plan, so what choice did they really have?

It's ugly, but there was little shot at immediate contention with a different plan, so what choice did they really have?

A shot at contention right away with a shot at contention down the road? Hell, if it didn't work the Cubs could still have traded away their players and tanked the second half of the season. Or worst case scenario they finish something like 77-85 this year and then tear the team apart this offseason and get their high draft pick in 2014. The Cubs had no real reason to head into this season with the mindset that they weren't going to compete. There were no time-sensitive decisions that needed to be made that couldn't also be made at a later date.

The Cubs had no real reason to head into this season with the mindset that they weren't going to compete.

McCoy, over the offseason: "I can't see how this team might contend unless every piece that has to fall in place includes two are three other Central teams dying in plane crashes, a few Cub scrubs turning into Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds, and the league letting the Cub pitchers throw from 45 feet away." Link.

In a post complaining about how it was dumb to waste $5M by signing Maholm, no less.

There were no time-sensitive decisions that needed to be made that couldn't also be made at a later date.

There were a couple, with Sean Marshall probably the biggest one. They get significantly less for him if they move him at the deadline with just a few months left on his contract.

And they weren't a 77-85 team. They went 71-91 and were losing their best hitter without any chance of re-signing him. The only other player they lost from 2011 who would have made even the slightest difference was Marshall and there the Cubs got a decent young infield prospect and a guy who actually _did_ help a little this year for a guy who was gone by 2013.

Furthermore, what you suggested they do is actually what the Cubs did. The Cubs were 43-59 on July 31 and went 18-42 after they traded away everything with any value left: they traded Reed Johnson and Paul Maholm (two guys acquired cheaply this offseason) for two pretty good prospects (though both with issues). They traded a badly struggling Soto for a random arm. They traded Dempster at the very height of his value for two pretty good prospects.

The Cubs gave contention the best shot they could afford (Maholm, DeJesus, Stewart, Johnson, Volstad and Wood were acquired to use this year and Soto, Byrd, Dempster, Garza and Marmol were holdovers). But it was simply a bad team, and then when they traded away any non-young player with any value it became an awful one.

McCoy, over the offseason: "I can't see how this team might contend unless every piece that has to fall in place includes two are three other Central teams dying in plane crashes, a few Cub scrubs turning into Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds, and the league letting the Cub pitchers throw from 45 feet away." Link.

In a post complaining about how it was dumb to waste $5M by signing Maholm, no less.

Well, that is nice but you're taking my post out of context and out of the general theme of my posts this offseason. I advocated that the Cubs try to compete this season by signing premier FA. When it was clear they weren't going to do that nor even try to field a competitive team I questioned the wisdom of that and the point of signing the players they did sign.

There were a couple,

Well, let me restate my view then. There were no real time-sensitive decisions of real consequence that need to be made that couldn't also be made at a later date.

With Marshall if they were trying to compete he would have been a valuable piece and holding on to him and even resigning him could have landed them either the same level of players, slightly less or higher quality players. The Cubs are a large market team with a lot of resources. They could have resigned Marshall and then if they tanked they could have traded him and ate some of his contract to make him even more valuable to teams.

The Cubs gave contention the best shot they could afford

I simply don't believe this is what the Cubs could afford.

This is going to turn into another bickering match about why the Cubs should have signed both Albert Pujols and CJ Wilson and re-signed Aramis Ramirez.

I simply don't believe this is what the Cubs could afford.

Maybe. But that's awfully hard to know. The opposite approach didn't seem to work for the Marlins though.

I advocated that the Cubs try to compete this season by signing premier FA.

And then when they signed a 2 WAR SP for a bargain price, you complained about it and said it was a stupid waste of money.

There were a couple, with Sean Marshall probably the biggest one. They get significantly less for him if they move him at the deadline with just a few months left on his contract.

They got back a 5th outfielder type and a lefty with mediocre stuff, who might one day, be as good as Marshall. This is not a haul justifying the trade.

It's ugly, but there was little shot at immediate contention with a different plan, so what choice did they really have?

Improvement from 71 wins to the 85-odd that would have meant wild card contention. That's obviously what they should have done and there was enough to build on to get there. Get in the crapshoot with a "Band Aid" team, get into the crapshoot with a team built for "Sustained Success" (TM), you're still in the crapshoot.

I simply don't believe this is what the Cubs could afford.

Of course it wasn't.

There's one excellent reason for it: a great draft pick.

They've picked top 10 seven times since 2000. Top 3 three times, and a fourth when they took Patterson in 1998. They've drafted top 3 as recently as 2007.

And they can't pay over slot anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly with Voros in 19...

The Marshall trade was puzzling at the time and it looks worse now. Marshall was bound to be a much more valuable chit at the deadline than he was in the offseason and it's not as if the market for him was going to vanish. Hell, for that matter, he might have been worth keeping if only to save as a rotation possibility.

The other trades were perfectly fine -- especially given that you simply cannot clean out a system like you once could. He got hosed by some NTC exercises, too -- but I have no problem with what he got back for what he dealt, I'm happy with it, even... at least, once I get past my OOTP-ish "why didn't you add Rusin, DeWitt, and Clevenger so the Rangers would include Profar!" silliness.

They've picked top 10 seven times since 2000. Top 3 three times, and a fourth when they took Patterson in 1998. They've drafted top 3 as recently as 2007.

I count 6 -- and two of those are still very much well-regarded prospects (Baez and Almora). Another was Prior, who was a no brainer that Dusty ruined, but it wasn't a bad pick. Beyond that, there's Vitters -- who probably isn't going to be much beyond Gary Scott, but might one day still become (a poor man's?) Shea Hillenbrand. Ryan Harvey was a raw HS that was probably a reach at 6 and Luis Montanez was a signability pick (also out of HS).

Of course, their history with "projectable HS bats" doesn't bode well for Baez and Almora.

The Marshall trade was puzzling at the time and it looks worse now. Marshall was bound to be a much more valuable chit at the deadline than he was in the offseason and it's not as if the market for him was going to vanish.

This can't be assumed. Good relievers lose trade value all the time by being ineffective and/or injured.

Improvement from 71 wins to the 85-odd that would have meant wild card contention.

So at a market price of $4.5M per marginal win, that's a minimum investment of $63M in 2012 dollars on the FA market, assuming perfect efficiency of resource allocation and no injuries, for a chance at scraping into the postseason as the final Wild Card.

What part of that is a good strategy, again?

Re 23

Yeah they signed him to play on a team that was going to lose 90+ games. If all they did was resign aramis i would have said it was a waste as well.

The level playing field in amateur acquisitions really hurts deep-pocketed rebuilding clubs.

The opposite is true: It hurts smart, low-revenue rebuilding clubs more because it's easier for deep-pocketed clubs to get better via FA.

Re 30.

How much did Aramis cost milwaukee? How much did willingham cost? Soriano was already an expense in the books.

So at a market price of $4.5M per marginal win, that's a minimum investment of $63M in 2012 dollars on the FA market, assuming perfect efficiency of resource allocation and no injuries, for a chance at scraping into the postseason as the final Wild Card.

This isn't how the real world works. Oakland improved by 20 wins and they didn't pay $90 million for those additional wins.

Of course, their history with "projectable HS bats" doesn't bode well for Baez and Almora.

But it's a different organization who picked Almora, and that might make a difference (or it might not).

Also they got Ronald Torreyes in the Marshall deal as well, and I think he's a pretty decent prospect. I think moving Marshall was the right move, though I suppose theoretically they could have gotten more back.

Finally the Angels went 86-76 in 2011, added the top FA hitter in Pujols, the top FA pitcher in C.J. Wilson and added a rookie who should win MVP, and they won 89 games and finished in third. The Cubs weren't getting Trout, their first basemen hit better than any other position and only 60 points of OPS behind Pujols, and Wilson had a 99 ERA+. If the Cubs had broke the bank and signed the top FA hitter and pitcher, they probably still would have been a sub .500 team.

Yeah they signed him to play on a team that was going to lose 90+ games.

And then flipped him at the deadline for two pretty good prospects (albeit the best one rehabbing from TJ).

Were the Cubs barred from making trades to help their 2012 team? You know, a "transaction" wherein you send one team some players and get back some ... better players?

Was there a memo on that?

People are acting as if it's impossible to improve from 71 wins to mid-80s. For a big budget team. That's silly.

And without pujols, trout, and wilson how many games would they have won?

Re 36. I'll believe it when i see it

Re 36. I'll believe it when i see it

you don't believe the trade happened?

It should be said here that Dale Sveum doesn't exactly evoke images of John McGraw or a sober Billy Martin. There were probably 5 wins to be had from replacing Quade with a talented manager.

Beyond that, there's Vitters -- who probably isn't going to be much beyond Gary Scott, but might one day still become (a poor man's?) Shea Hillenbrand.

Vitters may have been the worst player in the major leagues in 2012.

This isn't how the real world works. Oakland improved by 20 wins and they didn't pay $90 million for those additional wins.

Oh this is some ######## right here. Oakland got to where they are doing exactly what the Cubs are trying to do now -- develop young talent through the farm system. The A's are the famous all-rookie team. The teams that actually tried to buy their way into success in an offseason are the Marlins and the Angels. But trying to use the A's as an example FOR trying to buy up a ####### of free-agent wins is so blisteringly dishonest that if you're capable of feeling shame at all you should look into it.

Re 40

My statement I'd pointed at the view that the cubs got two good prospects.

The Marshall trade was puzzling at the time and it looks worse now. Marshall was bound to be a much more valuable chit at the deadline than he was in the offseason and it's not as if the market for him was going to vanish.



This can't be assumed. Good relievers lose trade value all the time by being ineffective and/or injured.

Yeah, but he was still an MR -- one of the best MRs, but still an MR -- so it's not sitting on say, a market value Zack Greinke and then seeing him get hurt. He gets hurt or goes down the toilet, he's no longer a chit... Oh well...

But it's a different organization who picked Almora, and that might make a difference (or it might not).

Also they got Ronald Torreyes in the Marshall deal as well, and I think he's a pretty decent prospect. I think moving Marshall was the right move, though I suppose theoretically they could have gotten more back.

Oh sure - though - I have not heard of much great turnover in the Cubs farm system instruction... Picking the right projectables probably matters most, but I think instruction matters, too.

As for Torreyes, my take on him is that he's got an upside of Henry Cotto.

Beyond that, there's Vitters -- who probably isn't going to be much beyond Gary Scott, but might one day still become (a poor man's?) Shea Hillenbrand.



Vitters may have been the worst player in the major leagues in 2012.

Isn't that a poor man's Shea Hillenbrand?

Re 43

When was the last time a billy beane team lost 100+ games. The a's have done the be good for a long time and then go 77-85 for awhile and yet they have occasionally contended and built for the future.

Vitters may have been the worst player in the major leagues in 2012.

It's possible, but I'm not even convinced Vitters was the worst player on his own team, especially if you include pitchers in your definition of "players".

Oh this is some ######## right here. Oakland got to where they are doing exactly what the Cubs are trying to do now -- develop young talent through the farm system. The A's are the famous all-rookie team. The teams that actually tried to buy their way into success in an offseason are the Marlins and the Angels. But trying to use the A's as an example FOR trying to buy up a ####### of free-agent wins is so blisteringly dishonest that if you're capable of feeling shame at all you should look into it.

The baseball world is not set up in a way that, to improve by a win, you must spend $4.5 million dollars. That isn't how it works.

And Oakland didn't expect to win 94 games this year; things just broke right for them. As they could have for a better-constructed Cubs roster.

It's possible, but I'm not even convinced Vitters was the worst player on his own team, especially if you include pitchers in your definition of "players".

I missed that Vitters got a hit on the last day of the season to lift his slugging percentage above .200. Last I had looked, he had an OPS+ of 0, but that hit and two walks against the Astros that day raised it to 9.