cubs2007 wrote:
So things get twisted like they usually do on this board. So now you agree this was not an exciting off season
and they did not load up on talent.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- duke34 wrote:

So just so I am understanding, there are people on this board that would have preferred Theo to make a  big move, just for the sake of making a big move... a la Jim Hendry?

---------------------------------------------

Yes, that's it. There's room for only what Theo has done so far and what Jim Hendry would have done. There is certainly nothing in between worthy of discussion.

mhuml32 wrote: How do you measure this?

Couldn't you say this about every trade you make? There is no ceiling to how "big" a trade can be

cubs2007 wrote: A lot of GM's on this board.

duke34 wrote:

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- duke34 wrote:

So just so I am understanding, there are people on this board that would have preferred Theo to make a  big move, just for the sake of making a big move... a la Jim Hendry?

---------------------------------------------

Yes, that's it. There's room for only what Theo has done so far and what Jim Hendry would have done. There is certainly nothing in between worthy of discussion.

Again, what are some moves that you would have liked Theo to make that would have made it an impressive offseason in your opinion?

Theo doesn't always do what's popular with the masses.  I thought people knew that when we got him.  I like the fact that he's thinking about long-term success instead of how best to sell tickets.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

duke34 wrote:

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- duke34 wrote:

So just so I am understanding, there are people on this board that would have preferred Theo to make a  big move, just for the sake of making a big move... a la Jim Hendry?

---------------------------------------------

Yes, that's it. There's room for only what Theo has done so far and what Jim Hendry would have done. There is certainly nothing in between worthy of discussion.

Again, what are some moves that you would have liked Theo to make that would have made it an impressive offseason in your opinion?

There were none. as I stated, there's no room for anything other than what Theo has done and what Hendry would have done.

The two basic premises that "some people" ( I love that) spot as indisputable truths to this off-season are:
Truth one - there's no need to add talent to this team becasue they are likely not going to be competitive.
Truth two - If Theo offers you alot of money , but you sign somewhere else for more money, then its not because Theo didnt close the deal, its becasue Theo dint really like you that much in afterthought.

There was nothing else they could have done because they are such a poor, money strapped organization. That certainly eliminated them from being more than bit players for Darvish and Cespedes. Theo liked Darvish for $29 mil but not for $51M. If they were willing to be on the hook for $90 mil to Darvish (assuming he would have signed with Cubs for similar deal he did with Tex) why was $111 so much more risky? Its just $21 mil more, or to put it in other terms, about half of what it would cost to sign Solar who is a much higher risk of failure.

I'm not certain of this, but I think baseball might be played beyond next year. So players like Darvish and Cespedes had a chance to be contributors to future Cubs teams. Instead, the safer (check that, just cheaper) options have been failures who were once high prospects. Perhaps a mix of the two strategies could have played better?

While everyone is doing cartwheels over the Marshall trade, Im not impressed. Wood does nothing for me and Terreyes is a long shot project.  Sappelt, a reserve OF at best, is nice, but hardly a need right now. Meanwhile, Marshal is a elite reliever. I would have liked a better single prospect than the mish mash they got for Marshall and I dont care how many years that mish mash is under control. Its still mish mash. If a better deal for Marshal wasn't available during the offseason, wait till the deadline when teams will be looking for players like Marshall.

But none of that is relevant, because as stated earlier, questioning anything Theo does is simply heresy.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

Theo liked Darvish for $29 mil but not for $51M. If they were willing to be on the hook for $90 mil to Darvish (assuming he would have signed with Cubs for similar deal he did with Tex) why was $111 so much more risky? Its just $21 mil more, or to put it in other terms, about half of what it would cost to sign Solar who is a much higher risk of failure.

It is totally fair to like a player for one price and not for a higher price. Just $21M more? Just  $21M more this year would have bought you one year deals with Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt. And Darvish is a higher risk of failure than Oswalt and Jackson. Look, I hear you that sometimes you need to overpay. If you just accept that overpaying is part of the process, however, then you end up like the Yankees with $200M in contracts to give you $140M of talent...except that the Cubs will only spend $140M, so you will get only $100M of talent...which isn't enough to win anything.

So players like Darvish and Cespedes had a chance to be contributors to future Cubs teams. Instead, the safer (check that, just cheaper) options have been failures who were once high prospects. Perhaps a mix of the two strategies could have played better?

Assuming you are referring to the Ian Stewarts and Casey Weathers of the world? You are 100% correct in that they are just cheaper. They may work out to be worth something or not.

Look, I am getting the impression they are not spending this year in order to be able to instead spend that money on the new fan deck in right field, the triangle building, the new Dominican facility, the expanded scouting department and new computer system, etc. They will sell it as doing it the right way, but to your point they are a big market team and can build the farm and buy free agents. We disagree on which ones to buy, but I suspect if he had the money, Theo would have signed someone. I'm assuming his payroll restrictions go away next year or else he wouldn't have taken this job.

While everyone is doing cartwheels over the Marshall trade, Im not impressed. Wood does nothing for me and Terreyes is a long shot project.  Sappelt, a reserve OF at best, is nice, but hardly a need right now. Meanwhile, Marshal is a elite reliever. I would have liked a better single prospect than the mish mash they got for Marshall and I dont care how many years that mish mash is under control. Its still mish mash. If a better deal for Marshal wasn't available during the offseason, wait till the deadline when teams will be looking for players like Marshall.

Under the old CBA, keeping Marshall had more value, since as a Type A free agent, you could get something when he walked and, he would have more trade value because the receiving team would know they could offer him arbi to get the comp pick as well. Under the new CBA, you need to have the guy on your team the whole year to be able to get the comp pick, and even then you can get comp'd only if the player is in the $11M/yr or higher range....no relief pitchers. So the highest value for Marshall was before the season started. I agree I would have preferred a single prospect with true upside instead of the plethora of mediocre, but I'm guessing that was either what Theo wanted or the best he could get. Marshall's trade value was as high as it could be, and having him pitch the first 1/2 for the Cubs would risk injury or loss of performance.

duke34 wrote:

cubs2007 wrote:
So things get twisted like they usually do on this board. So now you agree this was not an exciting off season
and they did not load up on talent.

I said I agreed that it was not an exciting offseaon, not with they did not load up on talent.  With the joke of the major league roster he was handed, for Theo to add anywhere from 4-5 (Soler) to our top 20 or prospects before his first draft, I would give him an A+ for this offseason.

cubs2007 wrote:

duke34 wrote:
I said I agreed that it was not an exciting offseaon, not with they did not load up on talent.  With the joke of the major league roster he was handed, for Theo to add anywhere from 4-5 (Soler) to our top 20 or prospects before his first draft, I would give him an A+ for this offseason.

How can you give a A+ based on what was done to improve the product on the field ?

I would give an A for rebuilding the front office. I would give a C for the player acquisitions.

duke34 wrote:

cubs2007 wrote:

duke34 wrote:
I said I agreed that it was not an exciting offseaon, not with they did not load up on talent.  With the joke of the major league roster he was handed, for Theo to add anywhere from 4-5 (Soler) to our top 20 or prospects before his first draft, I would give him an A+ for this offseason.

How can you give a A+ based on what was done to improve the product on the field ?

I would give an A for rebuilding the front office. I would give a C for the player acquisitions.

Isn't my reason why I give him an A+ for the offseason in my statement.  He's added quaility and depth to the farm system without taking the from the farm system and  without the help of a draft.  This is something this organization desperately needed.

I really don't know what you expected for this offseason.  Who did you want at 3rd base?  Who did you want playing right field?  Would you be happy to have spent $150+mm on two, while talented, incredibly unproven players? (Yu and Cespedes).  I don't believe that is the way for "sustained" success that Theo and Co have been preaching all offseason.

cubs2007 wrote: Until prospects make it to the majors they are suspects. Rizzo is the closest to major league ready and has had success at the higher levels. I have said that could be the big move but like the rest of the prospects it will be years before you can give a grade.

It doesn't matter what I expected this offseason. Look at the actual results. Stewart is coming off an injury filled bad year and Dejesus is also coming off an below average year. Add the signing of Maholm and the trades for Wood and Volstad and the results show these are average moves.

The Cubs could have spent big on a Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes and had sustained success. They all fit the profile of young players just coming into their prime years. These are all players that playing to their potential enable a team to sign the cheap free agents and integrate prospects for long term success.

There is more than one way to build the team for sustained success.

KatieCubFan wrote: Theo doesn't always do what's popular with the masses.  I thought people knew that when we got him.  I like the fact that he's thinking about long-term success instead of how best to sell tickets.

duke34 wrote: I would give an A for rebuilding the front office. I would give a C for the player acquisitions.Isn't my reason why I give him an A+ for the offseason in my statement.  He's added quaility and depth to the farm system without taking the from the farm system and  without the help of a draft.  This is something this organization desperately needed.

I really don't know what you expected for this offseason.  Who did you want at 3rd base?  Who did you want playing right field?  Would you be happy to have spent $150+mm on two, while talented, incredibly unproven players? (Yu and Cespedes).  I don't believe that is the way for "sustained" success that Theo and Co have been preaching all offseason.

cubs2007 wrote:


The Cubs could have spent big on a Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes and had sustained success. They all fit the profile of young players just coming into their prime years. These are all players that playing to their potential enable a team to sign the cheap free agents and integrate prospects for long term success.

There is more than one way to build the team for sustained success.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

duke34 wrote:

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- duke34 wrote:

So just so I am understanding, there are people on this board that would have preferred Theo to make a  big move, just for the sake of making a big move... a la Jim Hendry?

---------------------------------------------

Yes, that's it. There's room for only what Theo has done so far and what Jim Hendry would have done. There is certainly nothing in between worthy of discussion.

Again, what are some moves that you would have liked Theo to make that would have made it an impressive offseason in your opinion?

There were none. as I stated, there's no room for anything other than what Theo has done and what Hendry would have done.

The two basic premises that "some people" ( I love that) spot as indisputable truths to this off-season are:
Truth one - there's no need to add talent to this team becasue they are likely not going to be competitive.
Truth two - If Theo offers you alot of money , but you sign somewhere else for more money, then its not because Theo didnt close the deal, its becasue Theo dint really like you that much in afterthought.

There was nothing else they could have done because they are such a poor, money strapped organization. That certainly eliminated them from being more than bit players for Darvish and Cespedes. Theo liked Darvish for $29 mil but not for $51M. If they were willing to be on the hook for $90 mil to Darvish (assuming he would have signed with Cubs for similar deal he did with Tex) why was $111 so much more risky? Its just $21 mil more, or to put it in other terms, about half of what it would cost to sign Solar who is a much higher risk of failure.

I'm not certain of this, but I think baseball might be played beyond next year. So players like Darvish and Cespedes had a chance to be contributors to future Cubs teams. Instead, the safer (check that, just cheaper) options have been failures who were once high prospects. Perhaps a mix of the two strategies could have played better?

While everyone is doing cartwheels over the Marshall trade, Im not impressed. Wood does nothing for me and Terreyes is a long shot project.  Sappelt, a reserve OF at best, is nice, but hardly a need right now. Meanwhile, Marshal is a elite reliever. I would have liked a better single prospect than the mish mash they got for Marshall and I dont care how many years that mish mash is under control. Its still mish mash. If a better deal for Marshal wasn't available during the offseason, wait till the deadline when teams will be looking for players like Marshall.

But none of that is relevant, because as stated earlier, questioning anything Theo does is simply heresy.

PorkChopExpress12 wrote:

cubs2007 wrote: Until prospects make it to the majors they are suspects. Rizzo is the closest to major league ready and has had success at the higher levels. I have said that could be the big move but like the rest of the prospects it will be years before you can give a grade.

It doesn't matter what I expected this offseason. Look at the actual results. Stewart is coming off an injury filled bad year and Dejesus is also coming off an below average year. Add the signing of Maholm and the trades for Wood and Volstad and the results show these are average moves.

The Cubs could have spent big on a Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes and had sustained success. They all fit the profile of young players just coming into their prime years. These are all players that playing to their potential enable a team to sign the cheap free agents and integrate prospects for long term success.

There is more than one way to build the team for sustained success.

In one pargraph, your bashing the Cubs for going out and getting players that have not been at the MLB level and in the next pargraph your saying they should a whole truckload of money for Darvish and Cespedes even though they never been at the MLB level either. Which one is it?

And no, there really isn't any other way to build sustained success unless you have a farm system that produces quality MLB players. Just go through the list of teams that won a WS in the past 15 years and have sustained success. They all had farm systems that produced big time players.

Until the Cubs can build a system where they can consistentially produce quality MLB players, they should stay the hell the way from big time FA. Luckily, the Cubs have a team president that understands this.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:

Its obvious that I disagree with your adjectives (A+ and tremendous) to describe this off season. I see only one thing that remotely resembles those adjectives (Rizzo). That's not to say that I'm certain that they didn't try to get more, just that they didn't. That's fine, agree to disagree, its a message board.

One could use the argument that Stewart was the best choice available for 3b based on the availability of others. That still doesn't make that move tremendous. It's just a move that prays things work out better (much better) than that player did before. Do I like the gamble? Sure, why not, I'm just not building a statue to theo because of it. I am not building Theo a statue either because of Ian Stewart, I just't don't realistically think he could have done better that would have fit into the long-term plans.  Worst case, hes a cheap, stop-gap player for a year or two, while the rebuild takes place.  Best case, he rebounds to form that made him a top-10 baseball prospect and we have our 3rd baseman for the next 5 years.

Same for Volstad. It would be a nice plus to see him become a high 3's era pitcher. He just has to shave more than a run off of his era to do so. Impossible? I e never said so. Just that it's unlikely. So he's under control for two more years? Yaaaay. If he doesn't perform better (much better) than his history it's just another non consiquential move. Nothing tremendous about that.  I think we all could agree that there was no way Zambrano could stick around for another year.  Big Z likely had ONE suitor, and Theo was able to get a warm body pitcher with even remote upside.  Again, realistically, that was as good as you could do.

I also disagree with your assement that if Darvish isn't a 1 or 1A that he'd be overpriced. Look around the leafue,, and you'll find plent of $10m aas pitchers making that much as solid 2, 2a, ad 3's. But not many of them are 25 with the cieling of Darvish. I agree with everything here, but be real, the financial commitment to Yu is closer to $20mm per for the team... Look around the league.. thats way overpriced for 2s and 3s... Dempster??
 
Rizzo is the only thing of significance acquired. Sappelt is not. Others, like the 2 Cuban pitchers of no significance and the one Expensive Cuban who can't strike out anyone (along with Terreyes) are just long shots to be of use in 3-4 years. We know the odds on those don't we? Its sad, but those players you mentioned are all in our top 20.  Theo isn't exactly dealing from a position of strength with the joke of a 40-man he inherited.