2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[Saul Goodman]

I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.

That's easy.  The one who doesn't need Tommy John surgery.

Buzzkill.

[CT III]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

[PenFoe]

Arrieta
Lester
Price
Wei-Yin Chen
Hendricks/Pierce Johnson/Hammel

I've wanted Chen for a long time but I doubt they would or should try to outbid the Yankees who are in hot pursuit.

Something something Apex pining for the Asian.

[SKO]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).

[R-V]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

[Saul Goodman]

No qualifying offer from the Nationals to Denard Span, removing one potential obstacle to his becoming a Cub (but simultaneously increasing his value to everyone else).

[Oleg]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

I think it's also about mitigating risk.

[CT III]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

I think it's also about mitigating risk.

As an insurance professional, let me tell you that there is nothing more exciting than mitigating risk.

[Quality Start Machine]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

Not to mention, any minor league pitchers who have any realistic shot at being in the rotation are at least two years away, at which point the Cubs have cost-controlled pitching before they have to start shelling out to the position players.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?

Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.

And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.

I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.

Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

Not to mention, any minor league pitchers who have any realistic shot at being in the rotation are at least two years away, at which point the Cubs have cost-controlled pitching before they have to start shelling out to the position players.

This is where I'm at.  The hope is that they're as successful with the pitching they're developing as they have been with the bats.  If so, that'd be one well-oiled machine.

[Eli]

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

Or, in the case of this offseason, spend the money to steal young, in-their-prime superstar outfielders from the Cardinals.

[ChuckD]

I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?

Or, in the case of this offseason, spend the money to steal young, in-their-prime superstar outfielders from the Cardinals.

Intrepid Reader: BFIB

Oh geez, not Bourjos!!!

[ChuckD]

DPD. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html

24.  John Lackey – Cubs.  Three years, $50MM.  Lackey had a fantastic year for the Cardinals, with a 2.77 ERA in 218 innings.  His base salary was the league minimum due to an injury-related clause he agreed to upon signing with Theo Epstein's Red Sox in 2009, but the Cards added $2MM in performance bonuses.  After that bargain, the Cardinals made the $15.8MM qualifying offer, and Lackey is expected to turn it down in search of a multiyear deal.  He recently turned 37, so some suitors could be wary of a three-year deal.  The Cubs, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Royals, Giants, Tigers, Blue Jays, Orioles, Mariners, Marlins, Nationals, Rangers, Twins, and Yankees could all be part of his robust market.

Fuck. That. Shit.

[Bort]

DPD. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html

24.  John Lackey – Cubs.  Three years, $50MM.  Lackey had a fantastic year for the Cardinals, with a 2.77 ERA in 218 innings.  His base salary was the league minimum due to an injury-related clause he agreed to upon signing with Theo Epstein's Red Sox in 2009, but the Cards added $2MM in performance bonuses.  After that bargain, the Cardinals made the $15.8MM qualifying offer, and Lackey is expected to turn it down in search of a multiyear deal.  He recently turned 37, so some suitors could be wary of a three-year deal.  The Cubs, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Royals, Giants, Tigers, Blue Jays, Orioles, Mariners, Marlins, Nationals, Rangers, Twins, and Yankees could all be part of his robust market.

Fuck. That. Shit.

If they sign that fucking mouthbreathing Dunwich Horror, it's going to make my Snork FIREBARN look like a matchstick.

[Canadouche]

What if you can trade one of the Cubs young hitters for a reliable #3 pitcher or sign Lackey. What do you do?