Bleacher Bums Forum

You can say that it doesn't matter because Cubs are non-contenders and that having Aramis around might well have pushed the Cubs draft spot back from #2 this June, etc.  But, no getting around that current Cubs lineup would be dramatically better with Aramis at clean-up instead of Valbuena at #7.

And Aram's presence on the team might have gotten the 2012 all the way up to poor, with the assurance that as he aged, with a climbing salary and declining chance of getting anything of value for him in trading the remainder of his salary, he would not improve the team, but would weaken the team, and reduce the avenues for building value.

Thank goodness the Theocracy has scrapped the goal of competing if lightening strikes, or of just being a marginally better weak team and is going all out for building a team which will be dominant for a sustained stretch.

ARam is still a good player and could be a nice complementary player on a strong team.  That is not the Cubs.  I'm happy he's gone.

You are living in your own little world if you actually believe that if lightning strikes and the Cubs have a reasonable chance to make the playoffs this year, that the Front Office will not make an attempt to go all the way, consistent with their other goals, such as converting short term assets into long term assets.

Of course, you also thought "Obama was toast".

How good the chances are are not the issue.  Epstein has said that he would not write off the season if they had a shot at the playoffs in July.  I see no reason to think he isn't telling the truth.

How good the chances are are not the issue.  Epstein has said that he would not write-off the season if they had a shot at the playoffs in July.  I see no reason to think he isn't telling the truth.

Possible reasons for not telling the truth: ticket sales; ad sales for broadcast coverage; minimizing criticism from the ranters on sports radio.

He knows the Cubs have no real chance of being in contention at the end of July, and if they are five games behind in the wild card race on the 1st of July, I would look for a couple of moves likely to cause the team to fall farther behind rather quickly.

If the Cubs are in a position where they might be considered close to contention near the end of June, it would mean surprisingly good seasons out of multiple established players who would not likely be similarly productive when it would make a real difference for the Cubs (or not productive for long), AND we likely would see multiple other teams in the thick of things, teams likely to overpay for the productive established players on the Cubs.  And in those circumstances, it would still make sense to trade present performance for future performance.

But debating what the Cubs would do if they are in contention at the end of July is about like debating what you would do if Cindy Crawford asked you to sleep with her.  Would the Cubs remain true to their long range plans or would you remain true to your wife?

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The Theocracy is focusing on the future and is not concerned about the W/L record this season.

And that is as it should be.

We are still better giving playing time to Stewart or Valbuena at 3rd (and similar decisions elsewhere) in order to possibly create current value from close to nothing in order to trade it for future value than we are acquiring players who would marginally improve a team which still needs massive improvement.

I don't know, Jes.  A .500 record could be enough to be "in contention" for a wildcard spot.  It would not surprise me at all if the Cubs are hovering around .500 through the first half of the season.

While I seriously doubt the Cubs will be hovering around .500 by the end of July, if it appears they MIGHT be, and that being at that level would have them "in contention," you should expect moves earlier in July to reduce the prospect of them being "in contention" at the end of July.

When a .500 record at the end of July has a team seriously in contention in is likely to mean that there are a couple of very strong teams in the league, a couple of very weak ones, and then a much of teams which are middling.  In those circumstances it makes sense for a team which has no long term plan to go for it, and it makes sense for a strong team which has been under-performing to go for it, and it makes sense for a team which is playing over its head and almost never sniffs the playoffs to go for it.

It would NOT make sense for the Cubs to go for it.  It would make more sense for them to stay the course and sell off the mature assets that might be performing well to teams which will overpay for them, sending the Cubs future performance in return.

I have seen the comments from the Theocracy, and can not believe they would be foolish enough to do as they are saying they would, and doubt that they would be foolish enough to end up in the position where it would look as if they lied.

Any move which even marginally reduces the team's chance in the future for a marginal improvement in its chances this season is a mistake.

Also, it doesn't seem impossible to add a couple of short term pieces without meaningfully sacrificing long range plans.

It could also mean that a couple of players are have progressed much more than expected, and the team no longer has such gaping holes.

Not very likely.  But an intelligent front office would not make decisions sooner than they have to, based upon inadequate information.

Which young player has any realistic prospect of performing well enough above expectations to put this team in contention?

Are Soler or Baez going to pull a Pujols and force the team to call them up and then put in a season putting him in strong contention for the MVP?

One of the young arms in the minors going to break out like Wood did in '98?

Even If Jackson tears up AAA at Iowa, he is not going to be called up before the middle of the season after the changes the team made to his approach, because they want to see that it sticks.

There really are no possibilities for what you seem to be suggesting.

If the team is doing reasonably well in late July, it will be because some of the scrap heap pitchers, the marginal vet outfielders, Stewart, DeJesus or Soriano are doing better than is to be expected, and those are the kind of players you move for prospects if you get a chance.

This is a team which was constructed to be mid-season sellers, not mid-season buyers.

Also, it doesn't seem impossible to add a couple of short term pieces without meaningfully sacrificing long range plans.

It's also possible the movie "Angles in the Outfield" was a documentary.

Even if short term pieces could be added without meaningfully sacrificing long term plans, something would have to be trades, and that "something" would be other than "plans."  It would be promising prospects.  And the pieces added would would be short term pieces marginally improving a team which would only marginally improve its chance of reaching the playoffs when it really would not belong... and they would come at the opportunity cost of trading established players on the Cubs who offer the potential for real help in the future.

The decision on trades in July will not simply be a matter of who is given up in the Cub system or who is acquired, but also a matter of what opportunities the Cubs would be giving up, what Vizcaino or Villanueva the team would not get if it was foolishly buying instead of wisely selling.

At some point the Cubs will certainly have improved to the point that short term and long term goals can be pursued at the same time, and even to the point that they need to be pursued at the same time.

They are not close to that point yet.

Too bad for Baker.  I have to admit his 1-year deal seemed strange.  Kind of expensive to pay that much for an average starter knowing that he'd miss the start of the season, and with any setback like this that he'd miss a whole bunch of season.  Basically gave him a pretty nice contract to pay for his rehab season; even a modest setback like this makes it unlikely he'll be back in time to have trade value by July.  O well, I guess you take your chances and can't be surprised when you lose.