No Surprise: Chicago Cubs Claim Daniel Bard Off Waivers

[SilenceS]

Oh yeah, I can totally see the Cubs going hard after Masahiro Tanaka. Will they get him? I don't know, but there name will for sure be mentioned in the chase for him. I would be very surprised if Ellsbury leaves Boston. Boston would give him the most money. The Cubs will be after Choo, but I don't know if I want him. He'll most likely get overpaid (with weak FA class) and I don't want the Cubs to be the team to do so.

I don't think Choo will be that over paid. People tend to hold back on signing guys his age and skill set. Its not like he is power. The Cubs have to also add a 4 hitter. So, maybe they resign Dejesus but they are going to have to find a 4 hitter somewhere.

 

[beckdawg]

That may hold some water if they had payroll near the 145-450 mark annualy. Dropping payroll by 40 million plus and not adding to the glaring holes is the reason this team has floundered. 3B, 2B, and the bullpen were not addressed hardly at all. The main focus was on the starting rotation and was full of risks with Villanueva, Feldman, Jackson, and Baker, and that has now suffered a big hit with the loss of Garza.

They are back to square one IMO as the farm has developed, and now have to search for the same position players and pitchers that they needed just a year ago. Two years ago if you think about it.

It's time to start spending again.

Here's my problem with people complaining about spending. To drop the payroll $40 million you have to do a lot of things that make the team worse. Eating Zambrano and Soriano's deals saved them close to $10 mil but it also used up a great deal of their budget for signing people. Letting Pena and Ramirez walk saved them around $20 mil. And then you have various other moves that saved them money. Even if Marmol and Zambrano are crap players, having to deal with their contracts hurt the cubs in the short term. I mean to put $40 million into perspective, the A's entire payroll is like $70 mil.

People can complain ownership's position on reducing salary but the fact is as of May 1st the cubs were $600 million in debt(highest in the majors) with the annual profit before taxes and other expenses around $32 million. In other words, if they hadn't reduced that payroll $40 million they wouldn't be making money. And that's before they have spent a dime on the planned $300 million in renovation to wrigley. Now you could also argue that worse players lead to less profit via ticket sales. But to pay for one $10 mil player at $75 per ticket you have to sell 13,333 tickets. Let's say they had brought in Grienke. The cubs play 82 home games which would mean in order for Grienke to turn a profit they'd have to sell roughly an additional 450 tickets per game just based of him alone. I find it extremely unlikely he would provided that sort of attendance boost because the cubs still would have been terrible plus he only pitches every 5th game.

Also, the cubs aren't looking for one elite player to take them over the top. The cubs need about half a teams worth of average players before that even comes to matter. People bring up the dodgers. The dodgers had Kemp and Kershaw on their team before all the moves they made who were both home grown and both are MVP/Cy Young candidates. Rizzo/Castro and Garza aren't even close to comparable to those two yet. The cubs might be good in a few years but there's no guarantee that the farm system is ready and if they had signed guys to long term deals such as Grienke they could have ended up in the same situation they were in to start with which is high priced older players who aren't as good as their contract with no young players.

Frankly, i'm tired of cubs teams signings guys who are false hope which is what most of the guys in FA the past 2 years would have been. Until they have a group of core young players it's pointless for them to sign higher priced FA. It's really that simple. I'd honestly rather them suck for 5 years and build a team like the rays or A's do than to go back to where they were.

 

[beckdawg]

And yes, the Cubs say they don't have money but they do. They just say that so we don't expect a splash. The Cubs said that last year as well and signed Jackson. They have money and if the right player came along at the right price, the Cubs will make the play.

The cubs spent $6 mil of their savings from trading away players on a signing bonus for Jackson making his salary the next 3 years in the $11 mil range. That's not a lot of money for a pitcher. I think people are unrealistic if they think the cubs are going to go out and spend upwards of $15 mil a year on someone. I've long said Choo makes sense because he will be in a similar price range to Jackson and is a short term commitment.

 

[waldo7239117]

The cubs spent $6 mil of their savings from trading away players on a signing bonus for Jackson making his salary the next 3 years in the $11 mil range. That's not a lot of money for a pitcher. I think people are unrealistic if they think the cubs are going to go out and spend upwards of $15 mil a year on someone. I've long said Choo makes sense because he will be in a similar price range to Jackson and is a short term commitment.

Yeah, I don't see the Cubs going after a 15 million+ player unless it was a guy like David Price - like him. But there's not one like him available. And I kept saying I don't think Jacksons contract is so bad, especially what players are getting paid these days.

 

[Boobaby1]

Here's my problem with people complaining about spending. To drop the payroll $40 million you have to do a lot of things that make the team worse. Eating Zambrano and Soriano's deals saved them close to $10 mil but it also used up a great deal of their budget for signing people. Letting Pena and Ramirez walk saved them around $20 mil. And then you have various other moves that saved them money. Even if Marmol and Zambrano are crap players, having to deal with their contracts hurt the cubs in the short term. I mean to put $40 million into perspective, the A's entire payroll is like $70 mil.

People can complain ownership's position on reducing salary but the fact is as of May 1st the cubs were $600 million in debt(highest in the majors) with the annual profit before taxes and other expenses around $32 million. In other words, if they hadn't reduced that payroll $40 million they wouldn't be making money. And that's before they have spent a dime on the planned $300 million in renovation to wrigley. Now you could also argue that worse players lead to less profit via ticket sales. But to pay for one $10 mil player at $75 per ticket you have to sell 13,333 tickets. Let's say they had brought in Grienke. The cubs play 82 home games which would mean in order for Grienke to turn a profit they'd have to sell roughly an additional 450 tickets per game just based of him alone. I find it extremely unlikely he would provided that sort of attendance boost because the cubs still would have been terrible plus he only pitches every 5th game.

Also, the cubs aren't looking for one elite player to take them over the top. The cubs need about half a teams worth of average players before that even comes to matter. People bring up the dodgers. The dodgers had Kemp and Kershaw on their team before all the moves they made who were both home grown and both are MVP/Cy Young candidates. Rizzo/Castro and Garza aren't even close to comparable to those two yet. The cubs might be good in a few years but there's no guarantee that the farm system is ready and if they had signed guys to long term deals such as Grienke they could have ended up in the same situation they were in to start with which is high priced older players who aren't as good as their contract with no young players.

Frankly, i'm tired of cubs teams signings guys who are false hope which is what most of the guys in FA the past 2 years would have been. Until they have a group of core young players it's pointless for them to sign higher priced FA. It's really that simple. I'd honestly rather them suck for 5 years and build a team like the rays or A's do than to go back to where they were.

Why would you want to suck for any length of time? With that stance, you are basically putting all your eggs in one basket and making sure every duck is in a row with the farm. Sorry, it don't work that way for large market teams. The farm is really close and the Cubs have an abundance of resources that the A's and Rays don't have, and to sit back and lay dormant until the flowers all blossom at the same time is a complete waste of years and comes with astronomical odds to boot.

It's not as if those two teams have a proven track. They are the flavor of the day. The Giants were viewed as one of the poster-children for how to have sustained success and now find themselves in last place behind San Diego, going from 1st to worst. So nothing is a guarantee.

Buying mediocrity and taking risks on injured players to flip at the deadline or hoping they pan out is a very long, tedious process.

It could be me, but it sure doesn't seem like every year is being treated as precious and that the ultimate goal is the WS. opcorn:

 

[beckdawg]

Why would you want to suck for any length of time? With that stance, you are basically putting all your eggs in one basket and making sure every duck is in a row with the farm. Sorry, it don't work that way for large market teams. The farm is really close and the Cubs have an abundance of resources that the A's and Rays don't have, and to sit back and lay dormant until the flowers all blossom at the same time is a complete waste of years and comes with astronomical odds to boot.

It's not as if those two teams have a proven track. They are the flavor of the day. The Giants were viewed as one of the poster-children for how to have sustained success and now find themselves in last place behind San Diego, going from 1st to worst. So nothing is a guarantee.

Buying mediocrity and taking risks on injured players to flip at the deadline or hoping they pan out is a very long, tedious process.

It could be me, but it sure doesn't seem like every year is being treated as precious and that the ultimate goal is the WS. opcorn:

I don't want the team to suck. I said I'd rather they do then go back to poor FA signings. You act like it's a guarantee that signing people means they wont suck. You want a long term example of a successful team that build mostly from their farm? Look at the Cardinals. They've never been a big player in FA because they are a mid market team. And they have been a winning team for around 25 years.

And you want to talk about lack of proven track records, how about teams that build via FA? You have Boston and NY both of whom had most of their best players come out of their own farm system. You're talking Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettete, Elsbury, Pedroia, Bucholtz...etc. Every year isn't precious and to treat it like that is silly. That's how you end up with a bunch of crappy old vets making way too much money followed by 5+ years of rebuilding just like the cubs are in now. Some years you don't have the players to win and to try and manufacture them out of FA is a fools errand.

I'm not saying the cubs need to spend $70 mil like the A's but they sure as hell don't need to spend $150+ mil either. Their current payroll is fine. The Cardinals have made it work for the better part of 25 years.

 

[SilenceS]

I don't want the team to suck. I said I'd rather they do then go back to poor FA signings. You act like it's a guarantee that signing people means they wont suck. You want a long term example of a successful team that build mostly from their farm? Look at the Cardinals. They've never been a big player in FA because they are a mid market team. And they have been a winning team for around 25 years.

And you want to talk about lack of proven track records, how about teams that build via FA? You have Boston and NY both of whom had most of their best players come out of their own farm system. You're talking Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettete, Elsbury, Pedroia, Bucholtz...etc. Every year isn't precious and to treat it like that is silly. That's how you end up with a bunch of crappy old vets making way too much money followed by 5+ years of rebuilding just like the cubs are in now. Some years you don't have the players to win and to try and manufacture them out of FA is a fools errand.

I'm not saying the cubs need to spend $70 mil like the A's but they sure as hell don't need to spend $150+ mil either. Their current payroll is fine. The Cardinals have made it work for the better part of 25 years.

Cardinals do both! They were going to resign Pujols for over 200 million then the Angels jumped in. Cardinals are a model franchise right now. Tables will turn because sports always have teams come up and go down. But, the Cardinals are based on a couple of thing. Good scouting, development, coaching, and right FA moves. If it was the right move they will spend like Matt Holiday. There is also luck involved with the Cardinals but people seem to dismiss that but it very much is there. There is more then one way to skin a cat and until the Cubs win. No one and I repeat no one can say they are doing it right. Why? Because no one here is Nostradamus and until the product shows results. Its just a circle jerk going round and round with people.

 

[dabynsky]

Cardinals do both! They were going to resign Pujols for over 200 million then the Angels jumped in. Cardinals are a model franchise right now. Tables will turn because sports always have teams come up and go down. But, the Cardinals are based on a couple of thing. Good scouting, development, coaching, and right FA moves. If it was the right move they will spend like Matt Holiday. There is also luck involved with the Cardinals but people seem to dismiss that but it very much is there. There is more then one way to skin a cat and until the Cubs win. No one and I repeat no one can say they are doing it right. Why? Because no one here is Nostradamus and until the product shows results. Its just a circle jerk going round and round with people.

Seems quite a few people have made that point at various points, and the inverse statement is true. There is no way to know if what they are doing is wrong. The plan works if one or two of the big four prospects turn into difference makers. If they all bust then the plan fails and we get a new front office. It is that simple.

 

[SilenceS]

Seems quite a few people have made that point at various points, and the inverse statement is true. There is no way to know if what they are doing is wrong. The plan works if one or two of the big four prospects turn into difference makers. If they all bust then the plan fails and we get a new front office. It is that simple.

I agree, but eventually the product has to meet the price for admission. I would rather pay the price at Wrigley to see the Smokies then the current MLB team and I am a die hard Cubs fan like most.

 

[dabynsky]

I agree, but eventually the product has to meet the price for admission. I would rather pay the price at Wrigley to see the Smokies then the current MLB team and I am a die hard Cubs fan like most.

Sure, but there is a real easy solution to that problem right now. Don't go. I haven't been in years to be honest. I am not going to begrudge others for going and there is an inelasticity to demand for Cubs tickets which makes them able to not worry about fan backlash as much as other organizations. That said attendance is down and has been trending down for a while. Eventually results have to be shown at the major league level and it is not going to be an organically grown 25 man roster when this team is competitive.

Personally I believe that the Cubs are transitioning from the bottoming out of the roster to building a team that is competitive in the near future. That said the impact players are going to have to come from the farm system in one form or the other because those type of players in peak years don't exist anymore on the open market.

 

[Boobaby1]

I don't want the team to suck. I said I'd rather they do then go back to poor FA signings. You act like it's a guarantee that signing people means they wont suck. You want a long term example of a successful team that build mostly from their farm? Look at the Cardinals. They've never been a big player in FA because they are a mid market team. And they have been a winning team for around 25 years.

And you want to talk about lack of proven track records, how about teams that build via FA? You have Boston and NY both of whom had most of their best players come out of their own farm system. You're talking Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettete, Elsbury, Pedroia, Bucholtz...etc. Every year isn't precious and to treat it like that is silly. That's how you end up with a bunch of crappy old vets making way too much money followed by 5+ years of rebuilding just like the cubs are in now. Some years you don't have the players to win and to try and manufacture them out of FA is a fools errand.

I'm not saying the cubs need to spend $70 mil like the A's but they sure as hell don't need to spend $150+ mil either. Their current payroll is fine. The Cardinals have made it work for the better part of 25 years.

And what about the Sabathia's, Texiera's, A-Rod's, Papi, Manny, Drew, Clemens, Damon, and a countless host of others? BTW, the Red Sox already had established players way before Elsbury, Pedroia, Bucholz, and Lester came aboard.

The Cardinals are the exception, and even they are spending more than the Cubs with a lot of home grown talent. That also means that they are dishing out some healthy contracts.. However, if you want to have teams win the WS, you have to spend money and a lot of it. It is proven to have the greatest chance and that cannot be disputed.

If infrastructure were the only way to do it, the smaller market teams would have lengthy success and it wouldn't take 20 years of losing seasons to finally accomplish a few winning ones like in Tampa, Pittsburgh, and now KC.

The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves and whomever can turn a team around quickly if they want. IF the owner wants to put a winning ball club out there, he will do it.

There is absolutely no reason not to start to invest in the major league ball club. They have cleaned out everybody. opcorn:

 

[beckdawg]

Cardinals do both! They were going to resign Pujols for over 200 million then the Angels jumped in. Cardinals are a model franchise right now. Tables will turn because sports always have teams come up and go down. But, the Cardinals are based on a couple of thing. Good scouting, development, coaching, and right FA moves. If it was the right move they will spend like Matt Holiday. There is also luck involved with the Cardinals but people seem to dismiss that but it very much is there. There is more then one way to skin a cat and until the Cubs win. No one and I repeat no one can say they are doing it right. Why? Because no one here is Nostradamus and until the product shows results. Its just a circle jerk going round and round with people.

I don't consider re-signing guys the same as bringing in other FAs. I have no problem with re-signing your own guys.

 

[beckdawg]

Seems quite a few people have made that point at various points, and the inverse statement is true. There is no way to know if what they are doing is wrong. The plan works if one or two of the big four prospects turn into difference makers. If they all bust then the plan fails and we get a new front office. It is that simple.

The difference is, if they avoid signing big FA and the farm busts, they aren't in the same situation they are now. My whole point is to wait until you have a solid core to sign people because until that point it's all hopes and dreams.

 

[beckdawg]

And what about the Sabathia's, Texiera's, A-Rod's, Papi, Manny, Drew, Clemens, Damon, and a countless host of others? BTW, the Red Sox already had established players way before Elsbury, Pedroia, Bucholz, and Lester came aboard.

The Cardinals are the exception, and even they are spending more than the Cubs with a lot of home grown talent. That also means that they are dishing out some healthy contracts.. However, if you want to have teams win the WS, you have to spend money and a lot of it. It is proven to have the greatest chance and that cannot be disputed.

If infrastructure were the only way to do it, the smaller market teams would have lengthy success and it wouldn't take 20 years of losing seasons to finally accomplish a few winning ones like in Tampa, Pittsburgh, and now KC.

The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves and whomever can turn a team around quickly if they want. IF the owner wants to put a winning ball club out there, he will do it.

There is absolutely no reason not to start to invest in the major league ball club. They have cleaned out everybody. opcorn:

Funny you mention the Braves because they like the cardinals have long built via their farm so clearly they aren't the only team to successfully use that model. In fact, a lot of their core right now is home grown. As for KC and Pitt, I'll give you a simple reason they haven't contended until recently. They couldn't afford to keep their young players. Beltran, Grienke, Jason Bay, and Aramis were all dealt away. I'm sure I could go into more names if you'd like but it's pretty obvious they haven't kept their talent. There's a lot of reasons why they previously couldn't and now can. But the changes in revenue sharing have allowed them to keep at least 1-2 guys.

As for there not being a reason to invest, depends on your definition of investing. There's plenty of reason for them to avoid giving out $100 mil contracts. As for signing 1-2 $10-15 mil guys? Sure that's do able. But to be blunt, the young guys need to show they are ready to play before it's even worth considering higher priced FA.

 

[SilenceS]

The difference is, if they avoid signing big FA and the farm busts, they aren't in the same situation they are now. My whole point is to wait until you have a solid core to sign people because until that point it's all hopes and dreams.

Holiday was a FA and so was Beltran and a plethora of others! I am not bringing this up again because Hendry was crucified for signing Zambrano but at the time it was well below market price so was ARam. Not bringing up the Hendry argument again. Just saying perception.

 

[SilenceS]

The difference is, if they avoid signing big FA and the farm busts, they aren't in the same situation they are now. My whole point is to wait until you have a solid core to sign people because until that point it's all hopes and dreams.

I disagree! I do believe you have a core, but I believe in signing vets and then plugging farm when it is appropriate! To wait on your farm to come around is the same as relying on just FA's. Its leaving you only one option when both should be at your disposal. Theo and them were awarded the budget to draft and sign International FA's. The budget was cut on the big team to make way for that and Theo has to prove he can make the right FA decisions. His track record is not the best and his first big signing with Jackson hasn't panned out this year. I am not ripping him. I am just saying. I agreed with signing Jackson. Just like I agreed with a lot of Hendry signings at the time. They makes sense. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Theo and Jed have a lot to prove still and I just find it weird that people(not saying you) have a problem when people question it. They have the right. Until Theo proves it in Chicago then it is all just speculation. People are arguing the same points on each side, but don't completely see it.

 

[beckdawg]

Holiday was a FA and so was Beltran and a plethora of others! I am not bringing this up again because Hendry was crucified for signing Zambrano but at the time it was well below market price so was ARam. Not bringing up the Hendry argument again. Just saying perception.

Semantics. Holiday was a Cardinal the year prior to his FA. Therefore he was re-signed. As for Beltran, he was $13 mil a year and signed a 2 year deal. I'm fine with that sort of contract. It's $15 mil+ that I find limiting.

I disagree! I do believe you have a core, but I believe in signing vets and then plugging farm when it is appropriate! To wait on your farm to come around is the same as relying on just FA's. Its leaving you only one option when both should be at your disposal. Theo and them were awarded the budget to draft and sign International FA's. The budget was cut on the big team to make way for that and Theo has to prove he can make the right FA decisions. His track record is not the best and his first big signing with Jackson hasn't panned out this year. I am not ripping him. I am just saying. I agreed with signing Jackson. Just like I agreed with a lot of Hendry signings at the time. They makes sense. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Theo and Jed have a lot to prove still and I just find it weird that people(not saying you) have a problem when people question it. They have the right. Until Theo proves it in Chicago then it is all just speculation. People are arguing the same points on each side, but don't completely see it.

The budget was cut because the owners weren't making money as evident by the fact they cut 40 million and are now making 32 million before taxes. It's not like they dumped that $40 million into the farm system. Also, I'm not suggesting they wait for every farm prospect to come around. I'm suggesting they wait until some of them come around which is clearly what they've done.

If you want to sign someone like Jackson this off season in preparation fine. But, if they pay Elsbury $100 mil what goods he do? He's not enough. I'd even be fine with them getting say Johnson and Choo if they were 3-4 year deals sub $15 mil. Those are low risk contracts especially if they are front loaded like Jackson's was. Jackson's contract pays him $11 mil over the next 3 seasons instead of $13 mil annual value because they took $6 mil in saving from 2012 and used it as a signing bonus for him.

As for Theo's track record, that is sort of my point. If you bust on a $50 mil contract it sucks but it's no where near the pain in the ass of a $100 mil contract. And the fact is, there's not a great deal of evidence that $15+ mil contracts equate to enough value over mid tier FAs. I mean take Beltran vs Fielder for example. Beltran had 157 runs 52 HRs 171 rbi 15 sb. Fielder had 155 runs, 52 HRs, 205 RBI 2 SB. Beltran is clearly a substantially smaller risk. Additionally, Beltran is close to $11 million/ year cheaper which would allow you to bring in an additional player.

So, I'm not saying avoid FA entirely. I'm saying avoid big money contracts unless you're literally 1 player away. It's not the money being spent I have issue with. I'd much rather have 2 $10 mil/year guys than 1 $20 mil/year guy. It spreads the risk over 2 players and it's far more likely that 2 players will out produce one.

 

[Boobaby1]

Semantics. Holiday was a Cardinal the year prior to his FA. Therefore he was re-signed. As for Beltran, he was $13 mil a year and signed a 2 year deal. I'm fine with that sort of contract. It's $15 mil+ that I find limiting.



The budget was cut because the owners weren't making money as evident by the fact they cut 40 million and are now making 32 million before taxes. It's not like they dumped that $40 million into the farm system. Also, I'm not suggesting they wait for every farm prospect to come around. I'm suggesting they wait until some of them come around which is clearly what they've done.

If you want to sign someone like Jackson this off season in preparation fine. But, if they pay Elsbury $100 mil what goods he do? He's not enough. I'd even be fine with them getting say Johnson and Choo if they were 3-4 year deals sub $15 mil. Those are low risk contracts especially if they are front loaded like Jackson's was. Jackson's contract pays him $11 mil over the next 3 seasons instead of $13 mil annual value because they took $6 mil in saving from 2012 and used it as a signing bonus for him.

As for Theo's track record, that is sort of my point. If you bust on a $50 mil contract it sucks but it's no where near the pain in the ass of a $100 mil contract. And the fact is, there's not a great deal of evidence that $15+ mil contracts equate to enough value over mid tier FAs. I mean take Beltran vs Fielder for example. Beltran had 157 runs 52 HRs 171 rbi 15 sb. Fielder had 155 runs, 52 HRs, 205 RBI 2 SB. Beltran is clearly a substantially smaller risk. Additionally, Beltran is close to $11 million/ year cheaper which would allow you to bring in an additional player.

So, I'm not saying avoid FA entirely. I'm saying avoid big money contracts unless you're literally 1 player away. It's not the money being spent I have issue with. I'd much rather have 2 $10 mil/year guys than 1 $20 mil/year guy. It spreads the risk over 2 players and it's far more likely that 2 players will out produce one.

Fine. You want to wait until the Cubs are literally one player away. Hopefully, this century, that will happen. I am in the corner of that you upgrade at positions regardless if the opportunity presents itself. If the Cubs need pitching, which they do, and a Zack Greinke is available, I believe you go for him hard. If you land him, then you scratch that position off of the list and move one.

It doesn't mean you have to spend all in one year, or go with nothing but elite free agents either. I would have rather had Greinke and rolled the dice with a Schierholtz, versus signing Jackson, Baker, and Schierholtz for not much more money. At least, I get an ACE on my staff and move Shark down a notch or two in the rotation where he belongs. opcorn:

 

[beckdawg]

It doesn't mean you have to spend all in one year, or go with nothing but elite free agents either. I would have rather had Greinke and rolled the dice with a Schierholtz, versus signing Jackson, Baker, and Schierholtz for not much more money. At least, I get an ACE on my staff and move Shark down a notch or two in the rotation where he belongs. opcorn:

I get what you're saying. All I'm saying is just because you sign Greinke to a $25 mil/year deal doesn't make him an ace. Clearly, he's proven to be so in hindsight. But, there's guys like A.J. Burnett and Barry Zito who sign mega deals and don't live up to them. Like I said, it's not a matter of spending the money. I'm fine with them spending $25 mil but I'd rather they improve multiple positions rather than just 1 big signing.

As I said before, if you're 1 player away you probably can't improve multiple positions for $25 mil. And if this one position is what's stopping you from winning a title then sure, spend the money on one guy. But, the cubs have questions at so many places. So, I'd rather see them take a low term risk on 3 players and hope they fill say 2 then to hope they fill 1 on a huge contract. If Baker and Schierholtz fail, they are FA again next year and you can try again. If Greinke or whomever fails you had to use him for 6-7 years.

That's what I'm getting at. If you go all in on one guy in FA and he fails you're screwed. If you spread it out over multiple players and they fail, you generally can just try to find a better player the next year and with the cubs having a lot of holes, it seems like a much more sound theory.

 

[Boobaby1]

I get what you're saying. All I'm saying is just because you sign Greinke to a $25 mil/year deal doesn't make him an ace. Clearly, he's proven to be so in hindsight. But, there's guys like A.J. Burnett and Barry Zito who sign mega deals and don't live up to them. Like I said, it's not a matter of spending the money. I'm fine with them spending $25 mil but I'd rather they improve multiple positions rather than just 1 big signing.

As I said before, if you're 1 player away you probably can't improve multiple positions for $25 mil. And if this one position is what's stopping you from winning a title then sure, spend the money on one guy. But, the cubs have questions at so many places. So, I'd rather see them take a low term risk on 3 players and hope they fill say 2 then to hope they fill 1 on a huge contract. If Baker and Schierholtz fail, they are FA again next year and you can try again. If Greinke or whomever fails you had to use him for 6-7 years.

That's what I'm getting at. If you go all in on one guy in FA and he fails you're screwed. If you spread it out over multiple players and they fail, you generally can just try to find a better player the next year and with the cubs having a lot of holes, it seems like a much more sound theory.

Can the same be said about the draft? Granted, the monetary value is not equal, but if Kris Bryant is a bust, doesn't that set the organization back too. Everything is a risk on both sides and there is no clear cut science to finding successful players or else there would never be failures because GM's would know which players were going to perform, and which ones weren't.

The Cubs (and fans) have hedged a lot on Baez and Bryant. If they don't make it and do well, then where is the organization? Sure, you still have Almora and Soler, but they don't have the name that the other two do.

Like I said, it is all a risk. The Cubs need some impact players, and they are going to have to take a chance on someone, sometime. opcorn: