I like Jeff Samardzija, but uh, if you offer me Mike Trout for any combo of Samardzija, Garza, Dempster, and Starlin Castro, I wouldn't let Samardzija stop me from that trade.

The Cubs could have tried to win in a flawed division, too, but the consequences would have been painful. The Cubs tried that method for the past decade. They were one game away from the World Series in 2003 but haven't won a playoff game since.

"If we threw a lot of money at the problems, maybe we'd be incrementally better," Epstein says. "But then there would be a price to pay down the line."



They'd be better?

I like Jeff Samardzija, but uh, if you offer me Mike Trout for any combo of Samardzija, Garza, Dempster, and Starlin Castro, I wouldn't let Samardzija stop me from that trade.

Yeah, if you're not calling Starlin Castro off-limits, even if only on a technicality (nobody's giving up "two impact prospects" for him), I don't see why you go there with Samardzija.

And I agree with the implication of McCoy's comment. There's no reason why the Cubs should have to go through three seasons of crap before they're ready to contend. This is obviously a season of figuring out what they have going forward. But once they figure that out, they damn well should be better in 2013 than they are in 2012 and better in 2014 than they are in 2013, and they certainly should be willing to spend some money to fill holes if the opportunity presents itself in the next two offseasons.

I'd trade Jeff Samardzija for Starlin Castro any day of the week.

I would keep Garza, Castro, and Samardzija (though I'm still not sold that this is more than a small sample size blip), and have no problem with jettisoning the rest. But I agree that there's no one untouchable here (or really anywhere in the system, I think).

I'd give up Castro+Samardzija+more for Trout in a heartbeat. Rip open the organizational phone book and just start highlighting the names you want. Done.

hope to develop a nucleus that will be ready to contend by 2015.

Ahem.

"But then there would be a price to pay down the line."

No, not really, not when you have the resources of the Cubs. How does cutting $20-30 M from this year's payroll change the outcome of this year's draft? If this were the A's or something, you might argue that cutting money this year leaves enough money to pay for Castro's arb years -- but apparently we're OK with trading away Castro's arb years.

There is no reason why the Cubs, Mets, Dodgers aren't the Yanks, Red Sox, Angels/Rangers of the NL. There is no reason they can't have high payrolls and good farm systems. Yes, eventually (and maybe increasingly under the new rules), picking at the end of each round catches up to you and/or you have bad luck and the farm system dries up and the expensive vets get old. But if that's after a decade of playoff appearances, I'm willing to live with it.

I'd much rather Theo came out and said something like "Sorry, I just didn't think Pujols was worth 10/$250-300 or Fielder worth his contract. If we couldn't land a couple of long-term superstars, then our most viable strategy was to blow the team up and target 2015-16." That's a reasonable position. Spouting small market philosophy as if it applies to the Cubs is not.

Trading Castro would be a boneheaded move. Sure, there are obviously better young players out there so, yeah, if the Angels are insane enough to trade Trout or the Nats insane enough to trade Harper, fine. But the idea that two "impact prospects" have a brighter future than Castro is a stretch. Affording Castro long-term should be easy for the Cubs.

And I can't really believe Samardzija is "off limits" in any real sense. Or is Theo hoping to send his kids to Notre Dame? Possibly it means that they genuinely believe he's more valuable than Castro ... and if Samardzija really is a cheap, 125 ERA+ starter than he might be. It's probably more a realistic assessment of Samardzija's trade value -- nobody will give them a Gio Gonzalez type package because he hasn't proven himself and there's not much incentive for the Cubs to give him up for much less than that even if they don't believe he's for real.

Also, what better way to pump up a guy's trade value than to claim he's "untouchable?"

Samardzija seems to have been around forever for a guy who has only thrown 233 major-league innings. But in many ways I think that's a great way to develop a starting pitcher: let him learn in the bullpen. Seems to have worked for pitchers from Kenny Rogers through Johan Santana and CJ Wilson – though the jury is far out on whether Neftali Feliz (or really Samardzija yet, for that matter) can stick as a starter.

Also, what better way to pump up a guy's trade value than to claim he's "untouchable?"

It's a lot better than the Hendry tactic of pumping up trade value. I can tell you that much.

I suspect about 90% of the players in baseball would be available for two impact prospects.Can't off-hand think of too many trades where two such guys went for one veteran. Most teams over value their own minor leaguers but say 2 players rated in the top 30 in baseball by one of the rating sites?

I'm not sure I'd trade Castro alone for Trout.

It's Bob Nightengale, why does anyone care what he's saying???

two high-ranking team officials told USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity because of competitive reasons.

Hey USA Today, I'm a high-ranking official with the Cubs, and here's some info, but don't use my name, because as long as my name isn't attached, it won't affect competition.

Stolen from NSBB:

8/13/11
?@BNightengale Jim Hendry will stay on as ?#Cubs? GM, barring Ricketts change of thinking


8/19/11
Ricketts announces that Hendry has been fired for a month

They would have given away starter Jake Peavy and his $17 million salary a few months ago. Now he's untouchable, with the White Sox envisioning him as their workhorse for the pennant stretch.

This is a pretty gross oversimplification, but hey it's USA Today, it's what they do.

With KW at the helm, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. If the Sox think that Danks is going to be healthy, and that Quintana is a decent 5th starter, trading Peavy, as part of a package for say Youkilus, makes perfect sense.

That said, I still expect the Sox, barring a big jump in attendence, to not add more than 5 million or so to the payroll at the deadline. They have several cost controlled players that are also pretty good: Dunn, Viciedo, Ramirez, De Aja, and Sale, to name the big ones -- but they also have quite a bit of money tied up in Danks, Rios and Peavy. If they can unload Rios or Peavy, and the way each is playing, it's not out of the realm of possibility, then I think KW would do it.

8/13/11
?@BNightengale Jim Hendry will stay on as ?#Cubs? GM, barring Ricketts change of thinking


8/19/11
Ricketts announces that Hendry has been fired for a month

Ha ha, yes, I remember that. Hard to take Nightengale seriously after that kind of spectacular fail.

Anyway, the idea that Castro "can be obtained for two impact prospects" is just too unserious to take seriously. That's either someone in the organization funnin' with old Bob, or Bob making stuff up, or the Cubs' way of saying, "hey, if anyone with a good farm system wants to trade that farm system away in exchange for Castro, I guess we might reluctantly listen".

"They have several cost controlled players that are also pretty good: Dunn"

I still can't get over how this statement is both quite true, and also would have sounded like complete insanity two months ago. I guess large sample sizes can lie, too.

Theo: Cubs not interested in trading Castro

Raul: Cuba not interested in trading Castro

I'm not sure I'd trade Castro alone for Trout.

Oh, I would.