FREE AGENT Signings

[Zvbxrpl]

I just have that feeling were all going to be deeply disappointed with the outcome of this offseason. ..

I do too. While the line up and catcher are problems to me that will get fixed soon for the better, the lack of TOR pitching irritates me. We need better starting pitching, though we're in a respectable spot now.

Gotta find our Chris Sale, Jose Fernandez, Madison Bumgardner, or Kershaw. Some non-top talent pick that clicks. Frustrating part is we have to wait a few months to know what's out there via high school and college ball, and knowing Pierce Johnson (unless he fights major odds) and CJ Edwards (strong questions about his longevity) aren't the answers right now.

 

[chibears55]

Didn't they say the would do that over the next 18 months?

Yea.. which means you add 1 or so significant player this off season, maybe make a deadline trade to add another, and then add 1or so significant player next off season. ..

so if they dont add anyone of significant this off season then that wipes out the first 10 months and leaves them with the trade deadline and next off season to hope and trade for or sign significant players in that 18 mos. span...


Just as we seen with Martin and the possibility of Lester there no guarentees. . That why im saying if they have the opportunity now to get such player, even if it might cost a little more then your willing to pay... you take that opportunity

 

[chibears55]

My feeling was they would add several SP via FA. Beyond that I will be surprised. They have a core group of young players they don't want to mess with. A big FA signing for a position player makes little sense from that perspective.

I agree about the position players cause there not much out there... im more interested too in building up that rotation m especially considering we dont really know what to expect from either arrieta or hendricks this year. ..

 

[Parade_Rain]

Arrieta is a solid 2. That's what to expect. Hendricks? Don't know, but I feel he will be a decent 4. Someone else mentioned it, but if you get a couple of Liriano types this off-season then the SP will at least be competitive. I wouldn't be worried as dominos haven't started falling yet. Also, getting Maddon raised fan expectations, but it likely hasn't changed Cubs FO method of operation.

 

[beckdawg]

Yea.. which means you add 1 or so significant player this off season, maybe make a deadline trade to add another, and then add 1or so significant player next off season. ..

so if they dont add anyone of significant this off season then that wipes out the first 10 months and leaves them with the trade deadline and next off season to hope and trade for or sign significant players in that 18 mos. span...


Just as we seen with Martin and the possibility of Lester there no guarentees. . That why im saying if they have the opportunity now to get such player, even if it might cost a little more then your willing to pay... you take that opportunity

Or it means they plan to do it over the next 18 months. You're projecting your feelings on to their motives. There's arguably better pitching on the market next offseason. If you're not comfortable with the price of someone the answer isn't "well just pay more." That's frankly a lazy way to go about things who's to say that they can? For example, what if the other team is willing to one up you at any cost? If you're in the case of say the A's last trade deadline then perhaps that attitude makes more sense but the cubs aren't sitting here with a playoff team lacking a game 1 starter. And even if by some miracle they do look like the A's next year at the trade deadline you can still make the same sort of move they did. Every year they have the opportunity to over pay a player. Lester isn't a once in a generation chance. If they are going to do it I'd hope they were at least a bit further along in their development of young players.

Clearly Lester is what you want which is fine but that doesn't mean it's the only option and woe is us if it doesn't happen. That sort of thinking is far too narrow-minded. For example, many(recently even) viewed Masterson as a top tier FA candidate coming into this offseason. Perhaps they feel that whatever his issues were are correctable. If they get him on a team friendly deal and he returns to form does that not accomplish your 3 step plan on adding players just the same assuming they look to add other players at the deadline/2016 offseason?

 

[chibears55]

Arrieta is a solid 2. That's what to expect. Hendricks? Don't know, but I feel he will be a decent 4. Someone else mentioned it, but if you get a couple of Liriano types this off-season then the SP will at least be competitive. I wouldn't be worried as dominos haven't started falling yet. Also, getting Maddon raised fan expectations, but it likely hasn't changed Cubs FO method of operation.

Arrieta could be and i hope he is, but your basing that off of 1 full season.. i personally need to see him repeat that to make it concrete for me...

 

[chibears55]

Or it means they plan to do it over the next 18 months. You're projecting your feelings on to their motives. There's arguably better pitching on the market next offseason. If you're not comfortable with the price of someone the answer isn't "well just pay more." That's frankly a lazy way to go about things who's to say that they can? For example, what if the other team is willing to one up you at any cost? If you're in the case of say the A's last trade deadline then perhaps that attitude makes more sense but the cubs aren't sitting here with a playoff team lacking a game 1 starter. And even if by some miracle they do look like the A's next year at the trade deadline you can still make the same sort of move they did. Every year they have the opportunity to over pay a player. Lester isn't a once in a generation chance. If they are going to do it I'd hope they were at least a bit further along in their development of young players.

Clearly Lester is what you want which is fine but that doesn't mean it's the only option and woe is us if it doesn't happen. That sort of thinking is far too narrow-minded. For example, many(recently even) viewed Masterson as a top tier FA candidate coming into this offseason. Perhaps they feel that whatever his issues were are correctable. If they get him on a team friendly deal and he returns to form does that not accomplish your 3 step plan on adding players just the same assuming they look to add other players at the deadline/2016 offseason?

Over the next 18 mos. is this off season, trade deadline, and next off season. .. so, again if nothing happens this off season it'll then be basically in 10 to 18 mos not over an 18 month period.

Yes, there may be better pitching next off season but there no guarantee they get 2 or even 1...

Most were sure they had a shot this year at either Lester, scherzer, or shields and they may not get any of them.
No Guarentees on waiting til next year...


Lester was clearly who the CUBS wanted, so my point was..
If he the guy they want, then dont let a few extra dollars keep you from signing him..
Im not saying if Boston goes 7/150 they go a bit more cause that crazy..
Im saying if Boston 6/135 then they go 6/140 and let him decide where he wants to play ...

If they go 2 yrs on a Masterson / Hammel route.. seriously, how many times you gonna roll the dice on projects

 

[beckdawg]

Over the next 18 mos. is this off season, trade deadline, and next off season. .. so, again if nothing happens this off season it'll then be basically in 10 to 18 mos not over an 18 month period.

Yes, there may be better pitching next off season but there no guarantee they get 2 or even 1...

Most were sure they had a shot this year at either Lester, scherzer, or shields and they may not get any of them.
No Guarentees on waiting til next year...


Lester was clearly who the CUBS wanted, so my point was..
If he the guy they want, then dont let a few extra dollars keep you from signing him..
Im not saying if Boston goes 7/150 they go a bit more cause that crazy..
Im saying if Boston 6/135 then they go 6/140 and let him decide where he wants to play ...

If they go 2 yrs on a Masterson / Hammel route.. seriously, how many times you gonna roll the dice on projects

I mean clearly it is working no? As for a few extra dollars, that's not generally how it works. Typically the one up is going another year. If we're talking $5 mil then sure if he's your guy and that's what it takes then fine but take the Tanaka example. The cubs went 6 years $120 mil IIRC. The Yanks won because they went 7 years $155 mil. Also, I'll go back to what I said prior. The cubs need pitching but that doesn't mean it has to be a game 1 starter this year. What I'm getting at here is you can build up around the #1 without having to have him this year and make that the focus at either the deadline or next offseason if the opportunity doesn't present itself. Again, let's say it's Masterson and he rebounds decently on the two year deal you're talking about. that may not be the end all solution but it would make them better short term until they have a better opportunity to upgrade. To use a crummy analogy, you don't have to hit a home run when 4 singles also scores a run. Where you need that clear cut #1 is when you are a playoff team matching up against another very good starter. Until the cubs are at that point smaller upgrades are fine in my book. That's not to say I hate the idea of Lester but again I don't see it as end of the world if they don't get him.

 

[chibears55]

I mean clearly it is working no? As for a few extra dollars, that's not generally how it works. Typically the one up is going another year. If we're talking $5 mil then sure if he's your guy and that's what it takes then fine but take the Tanaka example. The cubs went 6 years $120 mil IIRC. The Yanks won because they went 7 years $155 mil. Also, I'll go back to what I said prior. The cubs need pitching but that doesn't mean it has to be a game 1 starter this year. What I'm getting at here is you can build up around the #1 without having to have him this year and make that the focus at either the deadline or next offseason if the opportunity doesn't present itself. Again, let's say it's Masterson and he rebounds decently on the two year deal you're talking about. that may not be the end all solution but it would make them better short term until they have a better opportunity to upgrade. To use a crummy analogy, you don't have to hit a home run when 4 singles also scores a run. Where you need that clear cut #1 is when you are a playoff team matching up against another very good starter. Until the cubs are at that point smaller upgrades are fine in my book. That's not to say I hate the idea of Lester but again I don't see it as end of the world if they don't get him.

Im not disagreeing with your point..
All im saying is unless its crazy yrs and money, if Lester is truly the guy they want then tbey make sure their offer is just a little better the Boston and let him decide where he most want to go like Tanaka did.

I just dont want to see Boston got him with a 6/130 deal and cubs lost out cause they only offered 5 yrs or 6/ 120...

 

[CSF77]

Atl has the inside track. Lester lives in that area with his family.

 

[JZsportsfan]

$30 million for Billy Butler? This FA market is outta whack already this offseason and the biggest FA's haven't even signed

 

[brett05]

Great question, seriously. Probably with more than 1 bust and one lesser bust but still MLB worthy player out of Soler, Baez, Alcantara, Bryant & Russell and an inability to fill the rotation with quality arms by 2016. Actually let me be more clear on that. We had a discussion a couple of weeks ago where I had found that in recent years top ten prospects had a success rate of 70% in terms of becoming starting MLB players. Alcantara was never top ten but I'll throw him in anyway. That would make 3.5 of those guys contributing players. In English I need three of those guys to be solid starters and another to be a contributing player either through a platoon system or general utility. I can certainly accept one buster out of the group.

The second part is that I need to start to see that their plan of exploiting market inequalities and building a team on power hitters based on league wide drops in offensive numbers over the traditional building by drafting top arms in the early rounds start to work. By this I mean that they can get those pitchers on the open market and/or through trades and reclamation projects. I'm not jumping off any bridges if they don't get any of the TOR guys this offseason but if by July all three of those guys signed with other teams and David Price, Jordan Zimmerman and Cole Hamels have been traded to other clubs I'm going to start to wonder where those top arms are coming from over a shrinking pool of talent.

The last part, and this is really more of a combination of the first two; if the Cubs go into 2016 on the heels of a disappointing 2015, which I would probably define as anything less than 83 wins, without a starting pitching staff that can go 1-3 with anyone and a lineup of 2-6 that can scare almost any pitching staff, well then I'd be off the bus. The thing is that seems very unlikely to me from where i sit. I've been behind this thing from day one but I will admit that eighteen months ago when I looked at the two key rebuilding plans in MLB, Chicago and Houston, I thought Houston in following a traditional/sabermetric hybrid approach emphasizing blue chip pitching looked to be outpacing the Cubs. Now though it looks different, they were unable to sign their top draft pick and they've had a rash of Tommy John surgeries in their second tier of pitching prospects. Seeing as that is exactly what Epstein and Hoyer were predicting (more surgeries, more development time for pitchers) I'm still inclined to believe in their plan.

Listen I'm one goofy ... fan, I've taken notes over the last few years when these guys have said something I thought was significant and particularly when they've said it twice or more. The arm trouble talk has been repeated more times than I can count and more recently there's been this said in a variety of ways so I guess not quite direct quotes but here they are "We plan on competing in 2015" and yet other times they say this "We plan on being a World Series contender beginning sometime in 2016". Both those things have been said so often that you have to try to figure out what "compete" and "contend" mean to them. I've got my theories and I won't repeat them here because I've posted them enough, but it's enough to say there is a difference and I believe they are telling the truth with both. So when do I jump ship? When the things I discussed above don't happen or it's clear we're being lied to. We're of course to use to that in Chicago because the Bears lie all the time, the Bulls have made it an art form and well hockey is to weird to figure out what the hell the're saying. These guys appear to be telling the truth through a sports lens of course. I'm on board for a while.

Great post. :clap:

 

[brett05]

Didn't they say the would do that over the next 18 months?

They said "over" not "in." Big difference there.

 

[brett05]

1) No one knows if the Cubs were even in on Tanaka let alone what the offer was
2) If it is $5 million more from the Cubs for any TOR the player is going to the better team. The Cubs need to go 20% more, not 2-3% more to out bid a top team on a FA TOR.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

1) No one knows if the Cubs were even in on Tanaka let alone what the offer was
2) If it is $5 million more from the Cubs for any TOR the player is going to the better team. The Cubs need to go 20% more, not 2-3% more to out bid a top team on a FA TOR.

1) The Cubs were obviously in on Tanaka. They paid the 20 million posting fee.

If they really wanted the guy, they would have beaten New York's offer. They didn't. New York won the bidding.

and

2) true.

This has the makings so far of another wasted offseason of signing flip pitchers who hopefully get on a hot streak.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

$30 million for Billy Butler? This FA market is outta whack already this offseason and the biggest FA's haven't even signed

Out of whack how?

Butler had a down year this past year. Easily could have doubled that salary elsewhere had he not dipped in almost every average.

I'm surprised its Oakland. The A's aren't known for spending. But they did something about their offseason need of a bat, not talk about it.

 

[brett05]

1) The Cubs were obviously in on Tanaka. They paid the 20 million posting fee.

If they really wanted the guy, they would have beaten New York's offer. They didn't. New York won the bidding.

and

2) true.

This has the makings so far of another wasted offseason of signing flip pitchers who hopefully get on a hot streak.

1) you are right they did post, but your second point is not right. They thought the offer that they made would have been enough. They were wrong.

The hater in me hopes they suffer, but the truth is my baseball friends who love the Cubs have suffered with that plan long enough. And like you said, it's hard to keep hitting winners on the scrap heap.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

1) you are right they did post, but your second point is not right. They thought the offer that they made would have been enough. They were wrong.

The hater in me hopes they suffer, but the truth is my baseball friends who love the Cubs have suffered with that plan long enough. And like you said, it's hard to keep hitting winners on the scrap heap.

Different mindsets, and props to the Yankees.

The cubs offered what they thought was fair.

The Yankees offered something that blew 'fair' out of the water.

Which one do you think wins?

Epstein himself said 'But let’s not kid ourselves. These deals will always be about years and dollars. Epstein put it this way during his end-of-season news conference: “Like 99 percent of free agents go to the high bidder.”'

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/signing-cubs-would-be-big-leap-faith-jon-lester

If he thinks this way.......and knew the Yankees were gonna beat his offer, my question is 'why bother?' Positive perception? C'mon, that's kiddy stuff.

I want them to challenge the cards this year, and right now its not looking good. Its very, very plausible for the cubs to sneak past Cinci (about to rebuild), Pittsburgh, and possibly Milwaukee, or at least be far more competitive. But they gotta make the right moves, and so far they haven't. Which is 50-50 for me. I'm not crying over Russell Martin. But a big need in LF, C, and a TOR pitcher are three acquisitions necessary to happen before the cubs leave the basement/laughing stock category.

I thought this was supposed to be the year we stop getting pantsed by the team in Missouri?

 

[TL1961]

No, this wasn't "supposed to be the year".

Why try to get Tanaka? Theo KNEW Yankees would bid more? Huh?

"Big need" in LF and C? Room for upgrade, sure. But they're not terrible in LF by any means. Pitching is the big need.

 

[Parade_Rain]

"We certainly hope this is the last year we'll be obvious sellers at the Trade Deadline," Epstein said Saturday. "Nothing would make us happier than being in the position Oakland is in, which is to aggressively add to the big league team and enhance the team's chances of making the postseason and winning the World Series."

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/83181760/theo-epstein-hopes-this-is-cubs-last-year-as-sellers

How does that get translated to going out and getting a couple of TOR, a LF and a C? How does that translate to pantsing the Cardinals in 2015? It doesn't. The most important portion of that quote is "hope this is the last year we'll be obvious sellers". That doesn't indicate they were going for broke in 2015 and signing Maddon, who unexpectedly was available, isn't going to change their plans this season. Expectations need to be tempered. This team will hopefully compete for the 2nd WC in August. That means hovering around .500.