Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[Guest]

I seriously doubt Ricketts would handcuff Theo from any deal that he felt would improve the team, which is why I'm not buying any reports that the Cubs are not serious bidders for Darvish or Fielder. They are just being extremely hush-hush in their negotiations, probably mostly to prevent driving up the price on the product they covet the most.

[SABR Gamer]

I really wish the Fielder situation could pick up pace.

 

edit: I realize the hold up is Darvish related. I guess I am just impatient.

[davearm2]

I really wish the Fielder situation could pick up pace.

 

edit: I realize the hold up is Darvish related. I guess I am just impatient.

Or, the holdup is Fielder/Boras looking for a 10-year deal.

[17 Seconds]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

Understandable. But that would be odd to have the same payroll as a team like Milwaukee.

[Guest]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

[Bryants Disco Ball]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

 

To be fair, it doesn't sound like he actually thinks that. Just that it's an irrational fear of his.

[MSG T]

I really wish the Fielder situation could pick up pace.

 

edit: I realize the hold up is Darvish related. I guess I am just impatient.

 

I don't doubt that there may be a hold up related to Darvish. I do doubt the holdup is on the Cubs end as I think they'd be willing to sign both now, assuming they get the bid on YD. I'd bet the holdup on Fielder is that at least a couple of other teams allegedly involved for Fielder are bidding on Darvish and are wanting to see how that goes before going hard after Prince. With Boras wanting the absolute best deal for Fielder, and wanting as many teams as possible involved, there's no doubt in my mind he's willing to wait.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

 

Would we put that past Epstein?

 

Even if we take every one of those reports at face value, which given Epstein's love of sending out mixed signals isn't something we should do, then what have we got? A very substandard offer to Pujols that he knew wasn't going to be accepted, an unknown bid on Darvish and "interest" in Fielder. That's not exactly writing a check.

[Guest]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

Offers mean nothing if they're not competitive. However, I agree with your point.

 

I just think Ricketts and Theo know that the system needs flushed. Aside from Castro and perhaps Garza there's not much talent above A ball. It's going to take time.

[dew1679666265]

Would we put that past Epstein?

 

Even if we take every one of those reports at face value, which given Epstein's love of sending out mixed signals isn't something we should do, then what have we got? A very substandard offer to Pujols that he knew wasn't going to be accepted, an unknown bid on Darvish and "interest" in Fielder. That's not exactly writing a check.

 

What's the benefit to Theo and the Cubs to feign interest in Pujols, Prince, and Darvish if we have none? It's not like the Marlins, where fans need to be appeased - Cub fans by and large are going to have faith in Theo's plan, at least early on, no matter what that plan is. The reported interest in Pujols did seem token, as you stated, and that likely wouldn't have seriously driven up his cost to the Cardinals. The Brewers had no shot at Prince whether we feigned interest or not. The Blue Jays and Rangers were the perceived leaders for Darvish from the start and there's no real benefit to the Cubs if they pay a little more for him - especially if the plan is to suck for the next few years.

 

I just don't see a benefit to us by feigning interest.

[SABR Gamer]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

If the Cubs have a payroll of 100m I will plant C4 around Wrigley and blow it up. That is not okay, period. I would be irate.

[17 Seconds]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

 

by most accounts, we never put a serious bid on pujols and we have no idea if there is serious interest in those 2 guys either.

 

in fact, the feigned pujols "interest" makes me more likely to believe that we aren't seriously in on those 2 guys either.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would we put that past Epstein?

 

Even if we take every one of those reports at face value, which given Epstein's love of sending out mixed signals isn't something we should do, then what have we got? A very substandard offer to Pujols that he knew wasn't going to be accepted, an unknown bid on Darvish and "interest" in Fielder. That's not exactly writing a check.

 

What's the benefit to Theo and the Cubs to feign interest in Pujols, Prince, and Darvish if we have none? It's not like the Marlins, where fans need to be appeased - Cub fans by and large are going to have faith in Theo's plan, at least early on, no matter what that plan is. The reported interest in Pujols did seem token, as you stated, and that likely wouldn't have seriously driven up his cost to the Cardinals. The Brewers had no shot at Prince whether we feigned interest or not. The Blue Jays and Rangers were the perceived leaders for Darvish from the start and there's no real benefit to the Cubs if they pay a little more for him - especially if the plan is to suck for the next few years.

 

I just don't see a benefit to us by feigning interest.

 

Helps us deal Garza without seeming desperate to move him?

 

I'm not saying it makes a ton of sense. I'm just saying "Half of the contradictory rumors flying around have the Cubs seeming willing to spend money but not enough to actually get any players" doesn't strike me as a counterpoint.

[Guest]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

 

Would we put that past Epstein?

 

Even if we take every one of those reports at face value, which given Epstein's love of sending out mixed signals isn't something we should do, then what have we got? A very substandard offer to Pujols that he knew wasn't going to be accepted, an unknown bid on Darvish and "interest" in Fielder. That's not exactly writing a check.

 

You sound like a truther.

[dew1679666265]

Helps us deal Garza without seeming desperate to move him?

 

Does it? Even if we plan to suck next year and the next few years after that, we shouldn't feel pressured to trade Garza right now.

 

I'm not saying it makes a ton of sense. I'm just saying "Half of the contradictory rumors flying around have the Cubs seeming willing to spend money but not enough to actually get any players" doesn't strike me as a counterpoint.

 

I'm as disenchanted with the offseason to this point as you are, but we've been heavily rumored for 3 major players - Pujols, Prince, and Darvish. We've missed on only one of them so far and the other two haven't signed yet. If the rumors are right about our offer to Pujols, I don't think we made a serious bid for him. But, as others have pointed out, Darvish and Prince fit the blueprint laid out by Theo/Hoyer more than Pujols, so they could be the ones we were serious about from the start.

 

If we miss on all three, I'll probably agree with you. Right now, though, I have to think we're serious players for Darvish and Prince.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

my pet fear: ricketts tells theo that he plans to keep the payroll around 100m for a few years, and theo still comes here because he views it as a "challenge" in the face of everyone saying he only won in boston because of the high payroll and big FA signings.

 

So the widely reported offer to Pujols, bid on Darvish, and interest in Fielder is just an elaborate smokescreen?

 

Would we put that past Epstein?

 

Even if we take every one of those reports at face value, which given Epstein's love of sending out mixed signals isn't something we should do, then what have we got? A very substandard offer to Pujols that he knew wasn't going to be accepted, an unknown bid on Darvish and "interest" in Fielder. That's not exactly writing a check.

 

You sound like a truther.

 

There's actual evidence against the truthers. Tons of it. So far, the Cubs' biggest offseason acquisition is a McDonald's.

 

I'm not saying the Cubs really are going with a super-cheap payroll. I'm saying that rumors of substandard Pujols offers don't contradict it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Right now, though, I have to think we're serious players for Darvish and Prince.

 

I think we are, too. I just think the hard facts we have this offseason equally fit alternative hypotheses.

 

The biggest reason I'd say it doesn't make sense is that the Cubs would be risking the torching of their own revenue stream. Bad teams don't make as much money as good teams.

[dew1679666265]

I think we are, too. I just think the hard facts we have this offseason equally fit alternative hypotheses.

 

The biggest reason I'd say it doesn't make sense is that the Cubs would be risking the torching of their own revenue stream. Bad teams don't make as much money as good teams.

 

The only hard fact that we have to this point is that the Cubs were unable to sign Pujols. A report that we made a substandard offer isn't a hard fact, it's a report. For all we know, the Cubs may have offered 10/270 thinking that would be enough and the Angles barely won the bidding.

 

With the very, very limited amount of actual, real information we have that we can count on, almost any hypothesis could seem somewhat reasonable. My reason for jumping into this, however, was to ask why you thought Theo would float out rumors that we were interested in Pujols/Prince/Darvish when we really weren't.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think we are, too. I just think the hard facts we have this offseason equally fit alternative hypotheses.

 

The biggest reason I'd say it doesn't make sense is that the Cubs would be risking the torching of their own revenue stream. Bad teams don't make as much money as good teams.

 

The only hard fact that we have to this point is that the Cubs were unable to sign Pujols. A report that we made a substandard offer isn't a hard fact, it's a report. For all we know, the Cubs may have offered 10/270 thinking that would be enough and the Angles barely won the bidding.

 

With the very, very limited amount of actual, real information we have that we can count on, almost any hypothesis could seem somewhat reasonable. My reason for jumping into this, however, was to ask why you thought Theo would float out rumors that we were interested in Pujols/Prince/Darvish when we really weren't.

 

Drive up the price of those players on rivals, keep a perceived position of strength in trades. Why would he sneak outside in a gorilla suit or lie to red sweater guy at Starbucks? Man likes his secret-agent games.

[dew1679666265]

Drive up the price of those players on rivals

 

What rivals? If the offer to Pujols is true, it didn't drive up the price on anybody, much less the Cardinals. The Brewers never had a shot at Prince whether we feigned/had interest or not. The Blue Jays, Rangers, Angels, etc., aren't rivals.

 

keep a perceived position of strength in trades.

 

Like I said before, Garza isn't a guy we have to get rid of tomorrow if we plan on sucking the next couple of years. Whatever our plans are going forward, we have time on our side and can wait teams out. We don't need to pretend to be trying to contend to get the most out of Garza.

 

Why would he sneak outside in a gorilla suit or lie to red sweater guy at Starbucks? Man likes his secret-agent games.

 

It's purple shirt guy. I don't remember why he was sneaking around in gorilla suits, but lying to purple shirt guy was an attempt for some privacy because he didn't want the fact that he was interviewing with the Cubs to become public knowledge/add fuel to the fire. I don't see how that situation is at all similar to feigning interest in players we have no interest in.

[dew1679666265]

To go along with that post, I'm not necessarily arguing that there's no way we're feigning interest in those guys. I'm simply arguing that logic isn't on the side of arguing that we are feigning interest in those guys since there's really no tangible benefit to doing it.

 

Maybe Theo has crazy financial restraints, knows we're going to suck until at least 2015, and is bored so he's messing with people's heads. I just don't think that scenario is at all likely.

[Lefty]

Bigger picture, this is a lousy major league team and a lousy organization. I think Darvish and Fielder make sense as long-term assets. But the damage done by the previous administration and the contract overhangs might demand some serious retrenchment. I never bought into the Obama hype but I do believe in Theo.

[jersey cubs fan]

To go along with that post, I'm not necessarily arguing that there's no way we're feigning interest in those guys. I'm simply arguing that logic isn't on the side of arguing that we are feigning interest in those guys since there's really no tangible benefit to doing it.

 

There's a tangible benefit. Theo obviously doesn't want the rest of the league (agents and teams) to know what he's going to do. Keep all options open while you negotiate what you want. Keep fans interested in the names they hear. This would hardly be the first time the Cubs showed interest in the top names all winter only to come away with something else. It's practically Cubs Marketing 101 (while acquiring your biggest piece before the convention is Cubs Marketing 201).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

To go along with that post, I'm not necessarily arguing that there's no way we're feigning interest in those guys. I'm simply arguing that logic isn't on the side of arguing that we are feigning interest in those guys since there's really no tangible benefit to doing it.

 

There's a tangible benefit. Theo obviously doesn't want the rest of the league (agents and teams) to know what he's going to do. Keep all options open while you negotiate what you want. Keep fans interested in the names they hear. This would hardly be the first time the Cubs showed interest in the top names all winter only to come away with something else. It's practically Cubs Marketing 101 (while acquiring your biggest piece before the convention is Cubs Marketing 201).

 

Coming in 2nd or 3rd in every major free agent bidding is also known as the MacPhail Doctrine.