Levine: Cubs eying Adrian Gonzalez

[Schwarber Fan]

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/2674/with-flat-payroll-cubs-eye-gonzalez-via-trade

 

Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts stated last week that the team’s payroll will remain flat. Knowing that, the Cubs' front office will be targeting the trade market as a way to improve on a disappointing 2010 season.

 

Like many teams, the North Siders have had their eye on San Diego first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, who can become a free agent after the 2011 season.

 

Washington first baseman Adam Dunn will be asking in the range of three-years, $40 million, a contract the Cubs will not be able to afford. The Cubs will look at Tampa’s Carlos Pena, the Yankees Lance Berkman, Arizona’s Adam Laroche, the Yankee’s Nick Johnson and possible short-term free-agent solutions if a trade for Gonzalez is not feasible.

 

I'd take Adrian over the 2nd tier first base class obviously, but my order of choices exlcuding Dunn would be:

 

1. Gonzalez

2. Pena

3. LaRoche

4. Berkman

5. Johnson

[UMFan83]

Who says the Padres are even trading him? Still good to see there's confirmed interest although there's no reason not to have any.

[soapy]

If the Cubs really "will not be able to afford" Dunn at something like 3/40, they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

[davell]

Hoyer said he'd LOOK at trade offers for AGON during the offseason. Which basically tells me that he's going to see what's out there, hold onto him and trade him halfway through the year, assuming they aren't contending again. Even though it's only for half a season, my guess is he'd get more of a bidding war going on then, when teams have less options than they do in a free agent market.

[shnsajax]

I really have zero desire to trade Jackson, Archer, or McNutt for him. If we can get him for Vitters and others then ok.

[SouthSideRyan]

If the Cubs really "will not be able to afford" Dunn at something like 3/40, they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

Maybe they mean they can't afford it after they waste 15M on veteran bullpen arms and an innings eating starting pitcher.

Edited November 9, 2010 by SouthSideRyan

[UMFan83]

If the Cubs really "will not be able to afford" Dunn at something like 3/40, they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

 

Really? All the talk is about them lowering payroll. Not sure if that means from Opening Day last year's number or end of the season number, but either way, adding a $13 million a year player doesn't seem like it fits in the lowering payroll mantra, especially when there's more than one hole on the team.

[SouthSideRyan]

If the Cubs really "will not be able to afford" Dunn at something like 3/40, they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

 

Really? All the talk is about them lowering payroll. Not sure if that means from Opening Day last year's number or end of the season number, but either way, adding a $13 million a year player doesn't seem like it fits in the lowering payroll mantra, especially when there's more than one hole on the team.

 

I know it's heresy to suggest last year's team wasn't a 110 loss flaming pile of poop, but 1B is the only gaping hole on the team that can't be filled internally

[Sammy Sofa]

If the Cubs really "will not be able to afford" Dunn at something like 3/40, they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

 

Really? All the talk is about them lowering payroll. Not sure if that means from Opening Day last year's number or end of the season number, but either way, adding a $13 million a year player doesn't seem like it fits in the lowering payroll mantra, especially when there's more than one hole on the team.

 

"All the talk" from the organization has been that the payroll will basically stay the same, though I'm still unclear if that means staying the same from what it was last year or "staying the same" after guys like Lilly and Lee were off the books.

[Wheelimus]

Geeze, seeing the 2nd tier we'll probably pick from I'd almost they rather work out a one year deal with DLee. If possible.

[UMFan83]

If the Cubs really "will not be able to afford" Dunn at something like 3/40, they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

 

Really? All the talk is about them lowering payroll. Not sure if that means from Opening Day last year's number or end of the season number, but either way, adding a $13 million a year player doesn't seem like it fits in the lowering payroll mantra, especially when there's more than one hole on the team.

 

"All the talk" from the organization has been that the payroll will basically stay the same, though I'm still unclear if that means staying the same from what it was last year or "staying the same" after guys like Lilly and Lee were off the books.

 

Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts says he expects the team’s payroll to be slightly lower next season.

 

The Ricketts family inherited a 2010 payroll around $144 million. Ricketts says he sees it being slightly lower next year.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-cubs-ricketts

 

Looks like it will be lower like I said, but it answers the question if that is pre-lilly and lee trade or post.

[Sammy Sofa]

So what's the payroll going into 2011 as it stands right now?

[Guest]

So what's the payroll going into 2011 as it stands right now?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457

[Sammy Sofa]

So what's the payroll going into 2011 as it stands right now?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457

 

So about $116 million? I guess what will be key is how much "slightly less" will be.

[soapy]

If we are talking about the payroll dropping $25 million, then I might need to jump in on the movement to just blow this thing up and start over.

[soapy]

Also, if we are assuming that the Cubs aren't going to go back to being a $130 million payroll team than I'm even less inclined to trade away all the players that have some potential to provide cheap production in the coming years for Adrian Gonzalez.

[davell]

There have been quotes about payroll that differ quite a bit. Just depends on who said it and when. I've seen things talking about our payroll being 145 mill last year and it'll go slightly down from there. I've seen things about our payroll being 135 or so and it going down slightly from there. I've seen reports that our payroll will be in the 125-130 mill range. I've seen reports that we'll spend more on scouting and development, while spending less on the major league team, with the overall baseball operations budget staying the same.

 

But, about the only thing I'm hearing that seems like a certainty, since it's coming from basically EVERY report, is the payroll is going down and not to expect any big free agent acquisitions.

[jersey cubs fan]

There have been quotes about payroll that differ quite a bit. Just depends on who said it and when. I've seen things talking about our payroll being 145 mill last year and it'll go slightly down from there. I've seen things about our payroll being 135 or so and it going down slightly from there.

 

The difference is the way people account for trades that happened. If opening day payroll was 145 they traded it down to 135, but since that was halfway through the year they actually spent around 138-140.

[MSG T]

So what's the payroll going into 2011 as it stands right now?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457

 

So about $116 million? I guess what will be key is how much "slightly less" will be.

 

Evidently under $129 mil (the $116 figure plus $13 mil per for Dunn). Is $15 mil a "slight" amount?

 

I realize it's the Ricketts team and they can do what they please, but how many people are going to come to Wrigley and see the updated bathrooms when the are winning 70 games each year? When the average fan starts expecting the team to suck when it's time to buy tickets in Feb, ticket sales will plummet. Will they drop back to early 1980's attendance figures? No, but dropping back to averages of 25-28,000 per game is quite possible.

[KingCubsFan]

So what's the payroll going into 2011 as it stands right now?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457

 

So about $116 million? I guess what will be key is how much "slightly less" will be.

 

Evidently under $129 mil (the $116 figure plus $13 mil per for Dunn). Is $15 mil a "slight" amount?

 

I realize it's the Ricketts team and they can do what they please, but how many people are going to come to Wrigley and see the updated bathrooms when the are winning 70 games each year? When the average fan starts expecting the team to suck when it's time to buy tickets in Feb, ticket sales will plummet. Will they drop back to early 1980's attendance figures? No, but dropping back to averages of 25-28,000 per game is quite possible.

Who cares? Put money in the farm system, build a team the right way, and they'll come back when we start winning.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's a ridiculously simplistic view of how to put together a good team. It's also ridiculous because it would require the Cubs to effectively tank at the ML level for an indefinite period, which would be disaster at this point.

[MSG T]

So what's the payroll going into 2011 as it stands right now?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457

 

So about $116 million? I guess what will be key is how much "slightly less" will be.

 

Evidently under $129 mil (the $116 figure plus $13 mil per for Dunn). Is $15 mil a "slight" amount?

 

I realize it's the Ricketts team and they can do what they please, but how many people are going to come to Wrigley and see the updated bathrooms when the are winning 70 games each year? When the average fan starts expecting the team to suck when it's time to buy tickets in Feb, ticket sales will plummet. Will they drop back to early 1980's attendance figures? No, but dropping back to averages of 25-28,000 per game is quite possible.

Who cares? Put money in the farm system, build a team the right way, and they'll come back when we start winning.

 

And how long will that take? Investing in the farm system isn't going to help next year or the year after. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't ignore the next couple of years. They have enough talent to win now with the addition of a couple of decent players.

 

I'd buy the "blow it up" sentiment if-

 

a) - they were going to suck regardless of what they do in the offseason

 

or

 

b) - there was no one available this offseason to get them back into contention.

 

Since neither of those are true, then do something to make this team better now. They don't have to go add $50 mil in payroll to do that.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's absolutely no reason to not both focus on improving the farm and improving the team through trades and FA signings. Attempting to do the former at the expense of that latter would just be stupid.

[KingCubsFan]

And how long will that take? Investing in the farm system isn't going to help next year or the year after. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't ignore the next couple of years. They have enough talent to win now with the addition of a couple of decent players.

 

I'd buy the "blow it up" sentiment if-

 

a) - they were going to suck regardless of what they do in the offseason

 

or

 

b) - there was no one available this offseason to get them back into contention.

 

Since neither of those are true, then do something to make this team better now. They don't have to go add $50 mil in payroll to do that.

I'm not saying blow it up. I'm just saying don't stretch the budget so that we can sign Dunn, a SP and some veteran relievers. If we can afford it without affecting long-term success, fine. But barring a few huge additions, our best case scenario no matter what we do is probably winning around 88 games in a crappy division and having the privilege of playing the Phillies in the first round. Save the money, get few 1-2 year rentals and hope for the best. This current team had its window, but it's basically closed now. No sense in giving out more longterm contracts to thirty-something players to prolong the agony. I think Ricketts is taking the correct approach in modernizing Wrigley and putting more money into the farm system. Those are the only two assets that will affect the team's long-term success.

[Sammy Sofa]

Save the money for what? Even the 88 and out scenario you described would make the Cubs more money in the near future than just "saving it for the farm." Avoiding signing players 30 and up is pointlessly shortsighted. The key is signing the right players who are 30 and up.