Latest Chicago Cubs Rumors: Everyone Available, Bruce Chen, Kerry Wood, Cuban Stars

There have been a variety of rumors swirling about the Chicago Cubs emanating from this weeks’ GM meetings, including a doozy that just came out…

  • The doozy? According to multiple sources, the Cubs are telling other teams that they’ll listen to offers on everyone on the roster this Winter. The front office reportedly recognizes a long rebuild is in the offing, and doesn’t want to rule out the possibility of bringing in a number of young pieces this offseason in the hopes of being competitive in the longer term future.
  • Privately, I’ve been hearing this for some time, but because Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer’s public statements contradicted the idea that the Cubs will shop their more valuable pieces, I’ve taken them at their word. Now that so many other sources are confirming what I’ve heard, it’s time to take the gloves off. The Cubs might not ultimately unload all of their talent, but they’ll consider trades that build for the future.
  • Buster Olney adds that the hottest names teams will be discussing between now and July 31 are Matt Garza and Sean Marshall (obviously Starlin Castro is even more attractive, but the kind of package necessary to pry him from the Cubs would be prohibitively large). The return on Garza could be enormous, and the return on Marshall could be impressively large. Would the Cubs be raising the white flag on 2012 if they dealt those two pitchers? I think it depends on the return. If a few ML-ready youngsters with breakout potential come back the Cubs’ way, you never know what might happen. Couple that with some strategic free agent signings…
  • Jon Heyman says the Cubs are pursuing lefty free agent Bruce Chen, who has had back-to-back decent (but not great) seasons in Kansas City. Chen, 34, had a 3.77 ERA and a 1.303 WHIP last year while making $2 million. His ERA+, however, was just 107, meaning he was only 7% better than the average pitcher. How much is that worth? Hard to say, but Heyman says Chen’s got multiyear deals waiting for him. Pursuing Chen during a rebuild would make some sense. Pursuing Mark Buehrle, on the other hand? Not sure about that.
  • While in the Dominican Republic to scout soon-to-be Cuban free agent Yoenis Cespedes, the Cubs are also taking a look at 19-year-old prospect Jorge Soler. The kid is consider a solid prospect with a projectable body, and, unsurprisingly, other big dogs on the amateur spending side – Yankees, Nationals, etc. – are interested.
  • Jed Hoyer says the Cubs will “consider” bringing Kerry Wood back, but he isn’t ready to commit. “Theo has met with him and I’ve begun to talk to Pat Rooney [Wood's agent],” Hoyer said. “So we are going to consider bringing him back. My view of him is he’s a guy who brings toughness. He doesn’t shy away from big moments and big games. I think that’s something really important. Chicago is a big stage and it’s a mistake to take that for granted. Not every guy comes in from the outside can necessarily handle it.” Wood, 34, made just $1.5 million last year, but ended the season on the DL after September knee surgery.
  • In his weekly chat, Bruce Levine confirms the Cubs are considering Yu Darvish, doesn’t think Grady Sizemore or David Wright or Orlando Hudson make sense for the Cubs, thinks Jason Veritek will be the Cubs’ next back-up catcher, thinks the Cubs could go after Chase Headley (with Josh Vitters headlining the package), thinks Andrew Cashner will be in the bullpen next year

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

124 responses to “Latest Chicago Cubs Rumors: Everyone Available, Bruce Chen, Kerry Wood, Cuban Stars”

  1. CubFan Paul

    Chen is a Boras client too. yikes. Boras probably won’t let Chen sign anywhere for less than $8-$11million a year because of his ‘solid’ 2010 & 2011

  2. jayrig5

    Not to nitpick, but I don’t think the Cubs are actually in Cuba to scout anybody.

  3. JulioZuleta

    Nice to hear. Any time a GM says anyone is “untouchable”, you are doing a disservice to your team. You never know when a team might absolutley blow your doors off with an offer for Starlin Castro. Granted, it would have to be ridiculous, like a Bryce Harper or Matt Moore type, but still, why shut any doors?

    Side note: I hate Bryce Harper and would have some serious issues with rooting for that d-bag. I was really happy when he turned 18 because that meant if the stars aligned and we crossed paths, I could kick his ass without tooooo much legal recourse.

    1. JasonB

      You’re just jealous because you don’t look as good as him in face paint :)

  4. Cliffy

    Complete rebuild count me in as a supporter of this plan. Tear it down and rebuild it the right way.

  5. nonesuch

    I’m ambivalent about hearing everyone’s up for grabs. I guess at right price, but figuratively raising the white flag on next season doesn’t sit well with me.

    1. ari gold

      I’m a huge Packer fan, and said the same thing when we hired our GM in 2005 and he tore it down completely and rebuilt the right way. Now, I’m happier than a pig in shit. Gotta give it time. It’s all about building for the future now

      1. T C

        “happier than a pig in shit”

        This might be the greatest colloquialism I have ever heard. From the very bottom of my heart, in the most sincere way one can possibly be on the internet, I thank you for introducing this to my life

        1. Katie

          You must not be from the Midwest! :). I work with a lot of farmers and they have the best sayings. My friends from the South do too.
          Some of my favorites:

          Crazier than a shithouse rat
          Dumber than a box of hair
          More nervous than a cat in a room full of rocking chairs
          You can’t swing a dead cat around without hitting (insert whatever here)

          1. rocky8263

            “slicker than calves slobber”. learned that one in federal prison in Kentucky along with “y’all and all y’all. The rural folks have a way with words.

            1. JulioZuleta

              Federal prison eh? Was it, “This won’t hurt much, it’s slicker than calves slobber right now”?

            2. CubFan Paul

              there is nothing wrong with y’all …us educated city folk say that too

              1. BetterNews

                We do?

  6. Spencer

    Ha, didn’t see this post before I wrote on the other bullets post this morning. Kind of goes hand in hand.

  7. Papi

    Would love to see Cashner close esp. if Cubs braintrust bring Woody back not only to handle late innings but continue to mentor Andrew as he has been

  8. Fishin Phil

    It never hurts to listen to offers.  I would be disappointed if they didn’t at least listen.

    1. Katie

      I agree with this, however Castro would be tough to part with, unless, as stated the return to the Cubs blew the doors off.

  9. hansman1982

    I like that they will “listen” on offers for any player.  The only 4 players I would be sad to see leave would be Castro, Jackson, Garza and Marshall, but if it means that we replace them with younger versions of themselves then I am all up for that.

    1. MoneyBoy

      Garza has 2 more yrs of arb eligibility, then FA in 2014.  Marshall is signed for $3.1 in 12, then FA.   This is sort of a “make it or break it” year for the Cubs in deciding who they want around when they are in a position to contend.  If the offers aren’t “good enough” for either, then sign them to long-term deals.

      Jason Varitek is going to be 40 next April for gods sake … You’ve got 2 guys in the system, one a LH bat, both cost controlled, who could fill in nicely for Soto.

      Bruce Chen is 34, Mark Buehrle will be 33 in March.   If given the choice of which guy to offer a 4 year deal to … oh puhleez.

      Assuming Pena goes, bringing Wood back not only gives you a leader in the clubhouse but, if you are able to move Marmol (please god … please) then you have a possible closer … or … let Cashner groom for the role early.

      Headley is an intriguing player … his home/road splits show he could benefit by getting out of the canyon that is Petco.  Will be 28 in May, 1st year arb eligible, FA in 15.

      Trade Castro?   Count me out … even though I paid the rans … umm … deposit, I would NOT renew if they traded Castro.

  10. Cliffy

    Question for Brett, with the proposed changes in the CBA doen’t it make sense for the Cubs to go hog wild signing international free agents ?

    1. MoneyBoy

      Agreed … by reports I’ve seen, the Cubs signed 8 IFA’s in 2009, 14 in 2010 and 6 this year. Interestingly, if the reports are correct, 5 of the 09 were from the Pacific Rim, 1 in 10 (plus the catcher from Italy), none reported in 2011.

  11. Ted Nugent

    re listening to offers: in theory, this makes sense, because you’re right, if someone wants to offer you $10 billion and their entire team for albert pujols, maybe you think about it. In practice, it could be construed negatively by the players on your team that they don’t mean anything to the organization, that there’s no benefit to continuity, etc. So while it may be good policy to always be willing to listen, it probably pays to be discreet about it.

    1. Spencer

      agree 100%. I don’t really see the good that comes from telling the world (and namely, the media) that you’re going to listen to offers from everyone. Telling other GMs, sure. But keep quiet about it. Can’t hurt to at least *listen*.

      1. Eric

        Think about what you said for a second. You realize if they tell all or most of the other GMs, the likelyhood of it leaking ANYWAY is like 100%?

        1. Spencer

          I knew someone was going to say that, and no, that is not true. How often do you hear reports from teams saying, “OMG WE JUST GOT CONTACTED FROM THE YANKEES ABOUT TRADING AROD”? Not very often. If you do hear stuff like that, it’s usually at the end of July when most of the stuff going around is just rumor and not actual fact. GMs don’t want to put other GMs on blast because they wouldn’t want that done to them. There is a “code” of professional responsibility, and GMs don’t go to the press each time the phone rings from another club.

  12. Eric

    I DO like that they are saying, we are listening. Nothing wrong with that. On Garza, I remember seeing a shot of him on the railing shouting and hopping around, I think his enthusiasm is nice to have around (the team), the fact that he is developing into a possible ace is awesome too. But if some team wants to offer astronomical talent that is worth 2 to 3 times in sure fire talent. Like some team so desperate they give you 3 of their top 5 ML ready prospects. Getting overpaid for your players is one way to quickly rebuild.

  13. die hard

    Ahem – Cubs must have liked my idea to dump Castro as he has peaked and can only level off or go down.

    1. Spencer

      yup. most people, and athletes, peak at 21, and then sharply decline after that. that’s why there are no professional athletes in their 30s.

      1. JulioZuleta

        Spencer, it’s best when you completely ignore him. My only wish for BN is an ignore button.

        1. die hard

          Yep just shout down those that disagree with the vast majority. Censorship is a slippery slope. Once you start then how and when do you stop? Today 2%. Tomorrow 5%. Day after tomorrow 10%. And so on.

          If you stayed silent when they came for your neighbor who will help when they come for you?

          The way the Cubs have been putting this together on the fly, doesnt it concern you that maybe some details are being overlooked? Its those details that concern me.

  14. Ryan

    Jed Hoyer had to make tough decisions in San Diego like trading Adrian Gonzalez so he’s not afraid to be unpopular if the right deal comes along. There’s nothing saying the Cubs can’t be competitive in the next couple of years if they get good returns on veteran players along with key free-agent signings.

  15. Kyle

    A million passes on Bruce Chen. He’s got no stuff, his peripherals are brutal, and he’s basically been doing it with smoke and mirrors that can’t last. He’s a fly-ball pitcher with a terrible fastball who walks too many, and I have no interest in seeing such a pitcher at Wrigley in summer, when 3-run homers start flying.

    If you are going to raise a white flag on 2012, which I don’t think you should, then trading Garza immediately makes sense while he still has two full years of team control coming up. You could get quite a haul.

    If you can get a good offer on Marshall, do it. He’s been an amazingly reliable reliever, but he’s still just a reliever. That goes double for the overpaid, hanging by a thread Marmol.

  16. JasonB

    “the Cubs are telling other teams that they’ll listen to offers on everyone on the roster this Winter”

    Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about! This is the best move – trading present value for future value is the best strategy for this team to take right now. See what we can get for our valuable pieces and go from there. I still think we can get a haul for Marshall and Hoyer is the guy who negotiated Adams’ trade last year, which brought back two solid pitching prospects to the Pads.

  17. Jack Nugent

    I really don’t think we should read too much into the “listening on everyone” stuff. It shouldn’t come as a surprise really; I feel like that’s sorta SOP for a team in the Cubs’ position. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna go and trade their only valuable players, although I gotta say– Matt Garza would be worth a king’s ransom at this point. If I had to say right now, I’d be against a Garza trade, but if the Cubs get a great prospect package in return, it might actually make a lot of sense to do it.

    The other alternative would be to sign Garza long-term right now, with the idea being there’s money to be saved while getting it done now, rather than in a year or two. 4 years, ~50MM would be a great deal, and I don’t think Garza could dismiss such an offer right away.

  18. sdcoddi

    I think this is a way of trading Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano, among others without mentioning their names and lowering their values:

    If they state that they’re trying to trade these two guys, and everyone knows they are just trying to rid bad contracts, then they will seem desperate and get lower offers. If they state that they’ll listen to offers on everyone, then it really opens up the market to move these two guys (maybe even byrd, barney and marmol) without sounding desperate.

    It’s all about perception.

  19. Cliffy

    As a side note, one could make the argument that the White Sox will now do exactly the same thing, They won’t have to worry about putting a competitive team in the same marketplace.

  20. BD

    My only question is, when you have a known commodity and you are not in a bind to pay said commodity, why do you need to trade it for “prospects”? Sure it would be nice to trade one piece for 2 or 3 pieces, but you never know if those 2 or 3 pieces will actually pan out.

  21. Cheryl

    Best move they could make. Listening never hurts. It gives them a better sense of the team’s worth.

  22. Luke

    Wait a second… Veritek as back up catcher? Who is he backing up? The only way that makes any kind of sense is if Levine believes Soto is being traded and that Castillo is taking the starting job.

    Or I suppose he could assume that Castillo is getting traded, but then I’d think Clevenger is the logical backup.

    I just can’t see a scenario in which Veritek is the backup in Chicago unless the Cubs are starting a rookie.

  23. Toosh

    Ryan Doumit could back up Soto. He can also play 1B and the corner OF spots.

    1. chris margetis

      I’m inclined to believe Doumit makes a lot of sense as well, because he can rake. Especially if the Cubs are backing off on Pujols/Prince, he could easily be the answer if the LaHair project doesnt work out. Trade Soto for pitching, sign Doumit and if LaHair doesnt work you move Doumit to first and have Castillo catch.

      1. Lou

        I would like to see Kotchman at 1b. Solid for defensive and decent OBP. Rebound season with Rays. Let’s face it, if the Cubs aren’t going after Puljos and Fielder (and by no means do I want them to) it’s all about OBP and run prevention then. And this guy could give us both with a much cheaper signing.

  24. Deez

    *** BINGO! ***
    This is what I like!
    Nothing’s (& No one’s) off the table.
    It’s more about being competitive for years than a year!

  25. JulioZuleta

    MLBTR.com “•Terry Francona isn’t going to try to manage in 2012, he told Sean McAdam of CSNNE.com. The former Red Sox manager had been excited about interviewing for the Cardinals job, but doesn’t think the Cubs position is the right opportunity.”

    1. Fishin Phil

      I think that is a wise move on Francona’s part.  I think a year off would do him a world of good.

    2. Katie

      We didn’t want him anyway. Pfffft!

    3. MoneyBoy

      For my 2 cents … I never thought Francona was a serious candidate here … health issues are/have been a concern … lifestyle issues (divorce) as well.   The Aaron Miles experience – we found out afterwards he’d been going thru a divorce, plus the dude couldn’t SEE !!!

      For one, I was surprised he interviewed in STL … taking a year off to recover and recharge makes much more sense.

  26. Cliffy

    RT @Rotoworld_BB: Terry Francona won’t manage next season http://t.co/HPO4b2j8

  27. Ramy16

    Terry Francona with drew his name from being a manager… That means Mike Maddux as mngr for Cubs??? Let’s hope so! MLB tv broke the news

  28. Cubbies4Life

    BD and EQ76 – Thank you for posting what I was thinking. I understand that it’s a “rebuilding” process and it has been a long time coming; but geez – TheoJed should at least TRY to be competitive in 2012. You have to take into account that probably 75% of Cubs’ fans simply love baseball. They are not as knowledgeable as the geniuses (excepting myself) who post on this blog about player stats, strategies, politics, and trades. That 75% just want to see the big W flag waving at the conclusion of more than 50% of the games played next season. In my humble opinion, it’s okay to say that you are “listening” – but to actually trade players like Garza and Castro? To me it’s unthinkable – for the sake of the 75%.

    1. Kyle

      The thing with “rebuilding” is that there’s very little evidence that a team that just gives up gets better faster than a team that keeps trying.

      Teams are in a constant state of oscillation up and down the competitiveness continuum, and it’s perfectly fine to decide that you aren’t in a position where immediate wins have a relatively higher value for you than long-term value.

      It’s absurd to decide that immediate wins have no value and tank the Major League Team. It’s very hard to come back from something like that. It will almost certainly affect revenues in the short-term, and it’s very hard to build a winning roster from scratch in the ensuing years. And for what gain? A few spots in the very volatile amateur draft? Not remotely worth it. The only teams that enact this strategy are doing it to line the owners’ pockets, nothing more.

      I see a lot of fans say the Cubs should just call up everyone from the minors. I’ve seen some go so far as to call for things like Vitters at 1st or Szczur in LF on Opening Day 2012. That is actually counterproductive to long-term building. Not only do you very likely short-circuit the prospects’ development by putting them in competition they aren’t ready for, you are wasting their extremely valuable pre-FA team control years on a season when you aren’t trying to compete.

    2. JulioZuleta

      But catering to the “raising the W flag more than 50% of the time” has gotten us 103 years of nothing. Sometimes it’s best to blow it up and start from scratch. It’s safe to say that 100% of Cubs fans will be happier to win a world series after a couple of rough seasons rather than stay at or around .500 forever. Completely appreciate and respect your perspective, but it has gotten us a lot of bad years. If you shoot for .500 every year, sometimes you sneak in to the divisional round, sometimes you finish 15 games under .500. If you are trying to build a perennial contender, you’ll be disappointed to not make the NLCS and every now and then, you’ll get to and win a World Series.

      1. Kyle

        “But catering to the “raising the W flag more than 50% of the time” has gotten us 103 years of nothing. Sometimes it’s best to blow it up and start from scratch. It’s safe to say that 100% of Cubs fans will be happier to win a world series after a couple of rough seasons rather than stay at or around .500 forever. Completely appreciate and respect your perspective, but it has gotten us a lot of bad years. If you shoot for .500 every year, sometimes you sneak in to the divisional round, sometimes you finish 15 games under .500. If you are trying to build a perennial contender, you’ll be disappointed to not make the NLCS and every now and then, you’ll get to and win a World Series.”

        That’s kind of setting up a false choice, imo.

        For one thing, there’s no one thing the Cubs have been doing for 103 years that caused them to not win the WS. They spent the first 40 years or so doing everything right and had miserable luck in repeated WS appearances. Then they spent about 35 years being the mid-century version of what the Pirates are now. Then they’ve spent the last 30 years as a moderately competent team that should be much better given its resources, and again had a stretch of poor luck in the postseason.

        I think there’s this false assumption that’s crept into Cubs’ fans minds, that winning is always a tradeoff between the present and the future. The way baseball’s system is set up, it’s not. Epstein said it better than I ever could when he called the majors and the minors “parallel fronts.” A well-run, modern organization should have no problem developing both fronts simultaneously, winning in both the present and the future.

        Too many people look at free-agent signing with distrust because of the idea that the Cubs are bad because they tried to build through free agency. That’s not really true. The Cubs are bad because they utterly failed at developing the other half of the parallel front: The draft. When Tony Campana has given you the most WAR of any player you’ve drafted in the last 8 years, you’ve completely and utterly failed in that aspect of your organization.

        Epstein and his brain trust are going to fix that problem, I believe, given their amazing track record in Boston and elsewhere. Unilaterally disarming in free agency, especially for a big market team, would be failing on that front just as badly as the old organization failed on the draft front.

        1. JulioZuleta

          Like Brett said, it’s not and either or thing. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t be opposed to trading a guy like Garza just to be less bad next year. The fact is, he has two years left on his deal, which means that he will be a free agent right when we should be hitting our stride as a power house. I’m not saying that I would be ok with going 0-162 next year, all that I’m saying is we need to lose the Hendryian philosophy of putting a band-aid on all our our problems to stop the bleeding. The reality is, the Cubs can NOT threaten to win a world series next year, which NEEDS to be the goal, so I would be open to trading some of our assets for a greater future return.

          1. JulioZuleta

            Aren’t you sick of the most exciting time most years being the weeks leading up to the trade deadline and the offseason? There are no curses involved with this organization, just a tendency to over spend on impulse buys for big name players who are past their prime, or the overly nostalgic philosophy of holding on to guys like Pie and Patterson and Rich Hill too long because, sure, everyone wants to see the Cubs win a Series with 25 home grown players. No one is more emotionally tied to this team than I am, but you can’t let yourself get too emotionally tied to players. The fans have and the front office has for years, which has resulted in terrible signings and trading prospects when they are no longer at their peak value. Sometimes running a business requires tough, unpopular decisions to be made, and we haven’t had an ownership or a front office with the credibility or the balls to make those decisions, so we’ve spun our wheels for decades. Apparently, Theo and crew are comfortable enough in their own skin, own reputation, and job status to make the decision that will not always be popular with the 75% of fans.
            I think of a trade that was unpopular with those 75% at one point but worked out very well, the Derosa trade. I have friends and family that were furious when we sent him to Cleveland for two “no name prospects”. Well, without getting Chris Archer, we wouldn’t have Matt Garza and wouldn’t be having these discussions. I’m only 23 but I’m incredibly frustrated with the way this team has been my whole life and am willing to wait a couple more years to get it done right. (Hope this post didn’t come off as rude, or attacking anyone, just get a little fired up about our Cubbies).

            Let’s all hope for a solid, competitive, intelligently built 2012 Cubs team followed by a Dynasty.

          2. Kyle

            “The reality is, the Cubs can NOT threaten to win a world series next year”

            I could not possibly disagree more. The Cubs can be a decent team next year, and decent but not great teams sometimes win the World Series.

            1. JulioZuleta

              Ok, then we have to agree to disagree. If you want to get into semantics, I could change it to “The Cubs cannot threaten to be a great team next year”, which is what the goal is year in and year out. The point is that I don’t want to sit around with decent teams and hope once every 35, 40 years we luck into one.

              1. Kyle

                Nobody wants that. But greatness is not on the table for the 2012 Cubs unless a ridiculous number of things go perfectly, so there’s nothing wrong with being merely decent and hoping to maybe get lucky like the 2006 Cardinals. It won’t hurt 2013 in any way.

    3. hansman1982

      Unfortunately, Hendry followed your proposal for far too long.  With the resources we have and the division we are in we should be looking to raise the W flag 60% of the time (97-98 wins) every year as opposed to 50%.

      Look at the Cards, they have dominated the Central for the past decade with a payroll of $100-120 million.  Considering that we could afford a payroll around $150 million (provided we are contending each year) we should be the Yankees of the NL central, where the other 4 teams shoot for Wild Card contention each year.

      1. Luke

        To be fair to Hendry, the Cubs almost were the Yankees of the NL Central. But who could have imagined that out of the entire 2003 starting rotation, only Zambrano would still be an effective starting pitcher 8 seasons later. Hendry absolutely failed to blow up and rebuild that team during / after the 2005 season like he probably should have, but then he probably never imagined that his fantastic starting rotation would be injuried out of existence either. Who could have imagined that?

        And to think some Reds fans were happy to get Dusty Baker as a manager. I kinda feel sorry for them.

  29. Mike F

    To some extent, I thinking were all over-reacting to a philosophical statement of fact. Generally general managers and personnel people have one of two philosophies, either there are untouchables or aren’t. I think the very good ones view their organization as ever evolving and you’re there until they can find someone better.

    That said, listen to offers, sure, it gauges value, but let’s step back for a moment. You’re truly going to seriously believe they would keep crap like Soriano and a distraction who is losing velocity, control and stuff, while being a nut case for 54 and 18 M respectively?

    I wouldn’t back the truck up quite yet. Could they or should they trade Marshall? Hell yes if they get more than he’s worth which they should for a LHRP of his quality, salary and age. But I think too much is made of Castro and Garza. Great thing to put out there in terms of my earlier comment, but let’s be clear, getting what either is worth given the Cubs situation is probably 2% or less on Garza and .5% on Castro. These are the only two clear pieces to build around on this roster, with all due respect today in either the major leagues or minor leagues as known today. In Castro you have a 21 year old all-star who has only upside and in a pitching starved league, in a pitching starved organization in Garza you have the only true top of the rotation pitcher who we just gave 5 players for a year ago and a significant piece of the minor league system for, so we probably need to add a little perspective thing.

    So yeah, it’s a good thing philosophically and hell of a lot better than the Bush approach to July 31 which I thought was stupid, but while you are and should be open to replacing anyone with better pieces, the likelihood of trading either Garza or Castro is remote at best.

  30. Cubbies4Life

    Thanks, Brett. I am aware that it’s not a “black and white, either-or” situation. I am excited to see what the new FO team does, and totally agree with you all that a major shake-up is in the cards (pardon my use of the C word). But after 2011, I’m hoping that the necessary rebuilding can occur while at the same time giving us all some happy moments!