Re: Sullivan: Cubs working on two year deal for Prior

[E.J.]

Doesn't sound like negotiations are going very well. I'm guessing he's traded.

 

ESPN

The Cubs would like to sign Prior to a one-year deal for roughly the $3.575 million that he earned last season, then add a club option for 2009. But Prior is hesitant to lock himself in at a low base salary when he might have a chance to make a killing on the open market next winter.

 

Prior's situation is complicated by several years of baggage and an undercurrent of tension. The Cubs think they've invested enough time in his rehab that Prior should show some loyalty to the organization. Meanwhile, Prior's camp points out that he didaccept a minor pay cut last year rather than push the Cubs to salary arbitration.

 

"It seems like there are some hard feelings there," said a baseball insider. "I don't sense that it's all hunky dory."

[CubColtPacer]

I'd make it a nice club option (say 8-10 million) but that's as far as I would go with Prior.

 

Two other quick things from that article.

 

One, it says Prior hasn't started throwing off a mound yet. That's not exactly good news for his return anytime soon. Also, whenever it says the club would "love to have him back by May", it typically means it will drag into the summer.

 

Two, the Marquis note at the bottom. Look at the way they phrase it: "rumblings that they're listening on Marquis". That implies that teams are offering something, which frankly doesn't surprise me. If you look at the wording on Morris in the next paragraph, it's completely different. That one says they are "actively shopping" Morris, which implies that nobody wants him.

[Post Count Padder]

Looks like he won't be back. :?

[Sarcastic]

Is it just me, or does this sudden rush of info about Prior being traded seem a little vague? All of these articles all came right after Olney's article saying the Cubs were willing to trade Prior and MIGHT do so if they failed to agree on a 2 year deal. His article probably had reliable sources.

 

After that, there was a flood of articles online about this with increasingly speculative predictions on Prior's future which offered no further sources. I'd bet that a bunch of sports writers were basically piggybacking on the Prior storyline and Olney's material, or whatever the original source of his article was.

 

I'm not taking new articles as evidence of anything more than what Olney actually wrote unless they provide new sources. Otherwise, they are just more speculation.

 

It looks like trading Prior will be a possibility. I seriously doubt they'll be able to get anything of vaue for him.

[Sammy Sofa]

[expletive], this is depressing.

 

Just get him signed, fools.

[CuseCubFan69]

Is it just me, or does this sudden rush of info about Prior being traded seem a little vague? All of these articles all came right after Olney's article saying the Cubs were willing to trade Prior and MIGHT do so if they failed to agree on a 2 year deal. His article probably had reliable sources.

 

After that, there was a flood of articles online about this with increasingly speculative predictions on Prior's future which offered no further sources. I'd bet that a bunch of sports writers were basically piggybacking on the Prior storyline and Olney's material, or whatever the original source of his article was.

 

I'm not taking new articles as evidence of anything more than what Olney actually wrote unless they provide new sources. Otherwise, they are just more speculation.

 

It looks like trading Prior will be a possibility. I seriously doubt they'll be able to get anything of vaue for him.

 

Why not? A lot of posters here think he'll bounce back and do well, why wouldn't a GM think that too?

[HoopsCubs]

Is it just me, or does this sudden rush of info about Prior being traded seem a little vague? All of these articles all came right after Olney's article saying the Cubs were willing to trade Prior and MIGHT do so if they failed to agree on a 2 year deal. His article probably had reliable sources.

 

After that, there was a flood of articles online about this with increasingly speculative predictions on Prior's future which offered no further sources. I'd bet that a bunch of sports writers were basically piggybacking on the Prior storyline and Olney's material, or whatever the original source of his article was.

 

I'm not taking new articles as evidence of anything more than what Olney actually wrote unless they provide new sources. Otherwise, they are just more speculation.

 

It looks like trading Prior will be a possibility. I seriously doubt they'll be able to get anything of vaue for him.

 

What might help seal a two year deal for the Prior camp is if the Cubs offered a tiered vesting option for 2009 based on games started or innings pitched in 2008: $6M for x, $8M for y, $10M for z.

[JeffH]

What might help seal a two year deal for the Prior camp is if the Cubs offered a tiered vesting option for 2009 based on games started or innings pitched in 2008: $6M for x, $8M for y, $10M for z.

 

The problem with major league performance incentives for 2008 is that, as supposed contenders, the Cubs may not want to let Prior "strengthen his arm" by pitching at the major league level.

 

If he's going to give us sub-Dempster/Marquis/Marshall/Hart performance in the rotation or sub-Wuertz/Ohman/Eyre performance in the bullpen this season, they may not want him pitching on the big club, even though it may be best for the long term.

 

The incentives for 2008 should be based on starts and/or appearances at the AAA level, assuming that is permissible under the CBA...

[jersey cubs fan]

What might help seal a two year deal for the Prior camp is if the Cubs offered a tiered vesting option for 2009 based on games started or innings pitched in 2008: $6M for x, $8M for y, $10M for z.

 

The problem with major league performance incentives for 2008 is that, as supposed contenders, the Cubs may not want to let Prior "strengthen his arm" by pitching at the major league level.

 

If he's going to give us sub-Dempster/Marquis/Marshall/Hart performance in the rotation or sub-Wuertz/Ohman/Eyre performance in the bullpen this season, they may not want him pitching on the big club, even though it may be best for the long term.

 

The incentives for 2008 should be based on starts and/or appearances at the AAA level, assuming that is permissible under the CBA...

 

No way. I doubt that's possible anyway. But why not give the team insurance against poor performance. If he's pitching major league innings, presumably he's going to be pitching well, and worth the incentives. If he's not good enough to pitch major league innings, then there's no point giving him incentives for logging time in the minors.

[JeffH]

What might help seal a two year deal for the Prior camp is if the Cubs offered a tiered vesting option for 2009 based on games started or innings pitched in 2008: $6M for x, $8M for y, $10M for z.

 

The problem with major league performance incentives for 2008 is that, as supposed contenders, the Cubs may not want to let Prior "strengthen his arm" by pitching at the major league level.

 

If he's going to give us sub-Dempster/Marquis/Marshall/Hart performance in the rotation or sub-Wuertz/Ohman/Eyre performance in the bullpen this season, they may not want him pitching on the big club, even though it may be best for the long term.

 

The incentives for 2008 should be based on starts and/or appearances at the AAA level, assuming that is permissible under the CBA...

 

No way. I doubt that's possible anyway. But why not give the team insurance against poor performance. If he's pitching major league innings, presumably he's going to be pitching well, and worth the incentives. If he's not good enough to pitch major league innings, then there's no point giving him incentives for logging time in the minors.

 

I'm in favor of giving the team insurance against poor performance.

 

But where is Prior's insurance against "I'm getting stronger every day" (tip of the cap to the band Chicago) "but I'm not strong enough yet to crack this top 3 NL pitching staff"? What's his incentive to sign such a deal?

 

I guess if you plan to sign him to a contract like this, you need to trade one of your five salaried starters (well, four plus Hill), replace him with a kid like Hart to start the season, and make a real commitment to having Prior in your rotation as soon as he's ready to pitch. I wonder if the Cubs are willing to do that.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm in favor of giving the team insurance against poor performance.

 

But where is Prior's insurance against "I'm getting stronger every day" (tip of the cap to the band Chicago) "but I'm not strong enough yet to crack this top 3 NL pitching staff"? What's his incentive to sign such a deal?

 

I guess if you plan to sign him to a contract like this, you need to trade one of your five salaried starters (well, four plus Hill), replace him with a kid like Hart to start the season, and make a real commitment to having Prior in your rotation as soon as he's ready to pitch. I wonder if the Cubs are willing to do that.

 

The incentives you offer Prior are A) The chance to make a lot more than $3.5m this year, if he pitches a significant amount of major league innings, and B) A chance to be paid a lot of money in 2009 if the Cubs pick up an option, or he reaches certain vesting numbers. You have to put the top line incentive at a very high level, so, that if Prior does pull off a miracle and start 33 games with 215 innings pitched in 2009 he's going to be getting paid something like $15m. The Cubs offer those high end incentives for both 2008 and 2009 in exchange for getting him a little cheaper on the guaranteed money this year, and the opportunity to bring him back, for significant cost, in 2009.

[Guest]

There would be no hurry at all to trade him. They could trade him anytime between now and 12/15 (the pre-FA arby deadline). Or they could tender an offer and trade him anytime between then and spring training after working out a one year deal. Or they could let him show himself healthy and either trade him or play him later in the year with the only risk being that he fails to rehab.

 

Unless the Cubs non-tender him completely, they only stand to lose a bit of money by holding onto him for a while.

[CUBZ99]

There would be no hurry at all to trade him. They could trade him anytime between now and 12/15 (the pre-FA arby deadline). Or they could tender an offer and trade him anytime between then and spring training after working out a one year deal. Or they could let him show himself healthy and either trade him or play him later in the year with the only risk being that he fails to rehab.

 

Unless the Cubs non-tender him completely, they only stand to lose a bit of money by holding onto him for a while.

 

Agreed, according to one article almost every team in baseball is willing to talk with Prior's agent if he is non tendered. Hendry would be a fool at this point to non tender him.

[brinoch]

I completely understand why the Cubs want to sign Prior for two years. I also completely understand why Prior wants to hit free agency after the '08 season. Working under the assumption that both the Cubs and Prior are interested in having Prior in Cub uniform for multiple years, what makes sense here is a one-year deal, with an option year for the Cubs. I'd offer $3.5M for this coming season, with incentives for games started at the ML level, and a Cubs option for $10M for the '09 season.

 

There's no real loss to the Cubs, or Prior, in making the option year cost more for the Cubs. If Prior makes it back to 2004/2005 levels, he's surely worth $10M. If he doesn't, then it's probably not worth it to exercise the option.

[Sarcastic]

The problem is that if Prior makes it back to 2004/2005 condition, and he's healthy, he could probably get a much better deal than $10 million, and he probably knows that. The current pitching market is insane. Someone with his upside coming off a good season and a successful surgery could get a pretty good contract with a desperate team, of which there are always plenty.

 

The club option would probably have to be a little higher than that, (although preferably not all guaranteed money) for him to accept it.

[jersey cubs fan]

The problem is that if Prior makes it back to 2004/2005 condition, and he's healthy, he could probably get a much better deal than $10 million, and he probably knows that. The current pitching market is insane. Someone with his upside coming off a good season and a successful surgery could get a pretty good contract with a desperate team, of which there are always plenty.

 

The club option would probably have to be a little higher than that, (although preferably not all guaranteed money) for him to accept it.

 

Yes, it has to be higher, or at least include reachable incentives that make it higher. But Prior is going to have to do more than just look to be back by the end of 2008, to get a big contract after that. It may be in his best interest to try and pitch half of 2007 to reignite the hype, then pitch a full 2009, so that going into 2010, teams will be ready to hand out a 6/100 type deal for him. That won't happen after 2008. He might get 3/30 if he's lucky, and that'll keep him off the market through 2011.

[craig]

The article said a scout said 29 teams would line up to talk. But Hendry's situation is that he can

a) have him on a 1-year deal for $3 or so.

b) persuade him to sign some 2-year or multi-year thing.

c) nontender.

 

If Hendry nontenders, the other teams aren't obligated to give the $3/1 deal Hendry has. They can offer $2/1, or whatever they please, and let the market set the price. But Hendry's lowest 1-year offer is constrained by the 80% rule. Would 29 teams line up to offer $3/1, when the 1 will be followed by free agency, and most/all of the 1 will be rehab? Maybe yes, but maybe no.

 

And would 29 teams be lining up at Hendry's door to offer real trade value in order to get a $3/1 obligation for a rehab guy? Maybe yes, but if not it wouldn't surprise me.

 

I assume that Hendry will tender him an offer, and continue to negotiate later. But if the $3/1 is what he gets stuck with, that he'll take that as the cost of doing business, and hope that Prior turns golden. I don't think that's necessarily too much to offer to retain control for at least a little longer.

 

But it seems many of the deals suggested by posters are Cub-friendly deals. Control Prior beyond this year so we can get a really good pitcher if he does bounce back, but options and all kinds of protections in case he doesn't come back. I'm a Cub fan, so of course I want Cub-friendly deals. But a real deal needs to be Prior friendly or else he doesn't need to bother to sign it. It has to be more Prior friendly than $3/1 with the chance at complete free agency afterwards.

 

1-year then play the market is a very good scenario for Prior. Let the Cubs pay him $3/1, then see where you're at next winter. If you're healthy, make a killing then. If you're still recovering strength, some team will still offer one of these incentive-based deals.

 

I think it will be hard for Hendry to offer Prior something that's more Prior-friendly than $3/1 then free agency. It will have to be a pretty high-ceiling deal to make it better than status-quo for Prior.

[Lefty]

I believe the 80% rule is now the 60% rule under the new CBA. That makes the minimum about $2.2 million in all your scenarios. Don't think Prior would have the chutzpah to ask for a raise in arbitration, do you?

[SouthSideRyan]

Sure would be risky, but what if you get creative and offer something like 3/16?

 

All we'd be out by doing this is Kaz Matsui anyway, so who cares?

[Mephistopheles]

Why not do something like a one year deal + a club option that turns into a mutual option if he reaches certain performance based incentives. If he's still recovering the Cubs still control him. If he breaks out he can then go make a killing on the market. It's a win-win for both, I think Edited November 29, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[jersey cubs fan]

The article said a scout said 29 teams would line up to talk. But Hendry's situation is that he can

a) have him on a 1-year deal for $3 or so.

b) persuade him to sign some 2-year or multi-year thing.

c) nontender.

 

If Hendry nontenders, the other teams aren't obligated to give the $3/1 deal Hendry has. They can offer $2/1, or whatever they please, and let the market set the price. But Hendry's lowest 1-year offer is constrained by the 80% rule. Would 29 teams line up to offer $3/1, when the 1 will be followed by free agency, and most/all of the 1 will be rehab? Maybe yes, but maybe no.

 

And would 29 teams be lining up at Hendry's door to offer real trade value in order to get a $3/1 obligation for a rehab guy? Maybe yes, but if not it wouldn't surprise me.

 

I assume that Hendry will tender him an offer, and continue to negotiate later. But if the $3/1 is what he gets stuck with, that he'll take that as the cost of doing business, and hope that Prior turns golden. I don't think that's necessarily too much to offer to retain control for at least a little longer.

 

But it seems many of the deals suggested by posters are Cub-friendly deals. Control Prior beyond this year so we can get a really good pitcher if he does bounce back, but options and all kinds of protections in case he doesn't come back. I'm a Cub fan, so of course I want Cub-friendly deals. But a real deal needs to be Prior friendly or else he doesn't need to bother to sign it. It has to be more Prior friendly than $3/1 with the chance at complete free agency afterwards.

 

1-year then play the market is a very good scenario for Prior. Let the Cubs pay him $3/1, then see where you're at next winter. If you're healthy, make a killing then. If you're still recovering strength, some team will still offer one of these incentive-based deals.

 

I think it will be hard for Hendry to offer Prior something that's more Prior-friendly than $3/1 then free agency. It will have to be a pretty high-ceiling deal to make it better than status-quo for Prior.

 

It really doesn't matter if all 29 would offer 3/1, it only takes one. If all 29 would line up to talk, you can bet at least one would offer up 3/1.

 

To make it Prior friendly you offer reachable incentives that could cause him to make a lot more than $3m this year. You also allow the option to kick in automatically at certain levels, and you provide for reachable incentives that could bring 2009 up to a very high level.

 

If Mark Prior starts 33 games with 215 innings in 2009, there's no reason why the incentives can't bring him to $15-17m.

 

Another thing to consider is a no-trade clause that kicks in post July 31, 2008, which would make it very difficult for the Cubs to pick up an option and then deal him.

[craig]

As all of you guys have suggested, the key is to have enough incentives aind options and stuff to make a deal preferable to Prior than taking an arb-influenced Cub-controlled one-year.

 

I just think that prior might want a lot to give up FA. All it will take is one or two end-of-year games in which Prior looks healthy and has some stuff to get teams super interested. It may be pretty difficult to get him to give up even an unconditional option for free agency.

 

He doesn't need 20 starts or 10 starts or many of the incentive targets. One or two promising starts is all it will take to give him major earning power.

 

Lefty, if indeed the new contract has dropped the 80% to 60%, that makes the non-tender possibility even more unlikely.

[abuck1220]

Sure would be risky, but what if you get creative and offer something like 3/16?

 

All we'd be out by doing this is Kaz Matsui anyway, so who cares?

 

seriously. the cubs are apparently hemming and hawing about a few mil for prior, but they're perfectly willing to piss away $16 mil on that guy?

 

i'd much rather have mark prior for the next three years than matsui.

[Burtonbell]

Sure would be risky, but what if you get creative and offer something like 3/16?

 

All we'd be out by doing this is Kaz Matsui anyway, so who cares?

 

seriously. the cubs are apparently hemming and hawing about a few mil for prior, but they're perfectly willing to piss away $16 mil on that guy?

 

i'd much rather have mark prior for the next three years than matsui.

 

+1

Amen.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sure would be risky, but what if you get creative and offer something like 3/16?

 

All we'd be out by doing this is Kaz Matsui anyway, so who cares?

 

seriously. the cubs are apparently hemming and hawing about a few mil for prior, but they're perfectly willing to piss away $16 mil on that guy?

 

i'd much rather have mark prior for the next three years than matsui.

 

+1

Amen.

 

Count me in.

 

They can spend "recovery money" on guys like Dempster, Wade Miller and Scott Williamson after they were injured or had surgery to see if they could approach thei previous highs...none of which even sniffed the amazing pitching Prior did for the Cubs.