The 2012 Offseason Thread

[Backtobanks]

Hypothetically, we "could" add Price or Felix and Upton or Stanton next offseason. Wouldn't even be clearing out the minors, in order to do it.

 

It would clear out the minors in quality if not quantity. Price or Felix are going to cost you 2-3 top prospects plus 1-2 mid-level prospects. Upton would cost at least 1 top and 2 mid-level, while Stanton would probably be the same as Price or Felix.

[Guest]

Re: TV Money

 

It's ridiculous that we feel the need to wait until the WGN deal expires to spend the money we'll be getting from them? Like we can't project what kind of revenue bump is going to come with the new deal?

 

I think it's more complex than that. The team's uncertain burden for the Wrigley renovations might mitigate a lot of the WGN money considering what percentage of the total TV contract it is.

 

So we can't spend money until 2019?

 

I didn't say that, I'm just saying there's more factors at play than just "we can be pretty darn sure more money is coming, so we shouldn't have to wait to invest it".

 

But if the WGN money is mitigated by renovations, isn't that the case?

 

Well neither the WGN money nor the ownership's burden for renovations are actualized, but they aren't the only factor either. The Cubs didn't fail to sign Fielder or Greinke because they ran up against their payroll limitations, and I have a hard time believing they'd spend what they did on Soler and Castro, plus what they wanted to spend on Darvish, Ryu, etc. if they were up against an imposed payroll ceiling near where they are now.

[davell]

Bourjos will cost more than Marmol, I'd think. Plenty of teams will be inquiring, thats for sure. If we pay Marmol's deal, I guess I could see something like Marmol and Szczur and/or Vitters for him.

[Prizefight]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

[CubInOK]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I wouldn't have minded the Cubs matching that at all. He probably wanted an NTC though.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Bourjos will cost more than Marmol, I'd think. Plenty of teams will be inquiring, thats for sure. If we pay Marmol's deal, I guess I could see something like Marmol and Szczur and/or Vitters for him.

 

I'm not sure what's left of the Angels farm system, but would a package involving Bourjos and Conger for Garza be acceptable? We could always expand the deal to include Marmol.

[Tryptamine]

Bourjos will cost more than Marmol, I'd think. Plenty of teams will be inquiring, thats for sure. If we pay Marmol's deal, I guess I could see something like Marmol and Szczur and/or Vitters for him.

 

I'm not sure what's left of the Angels farm system, but would a package involving Bourjos and Conger for Garza be acceptable? We could always expand the deal to include Marmol.

 

No thanks. The Rangers have to be absolutely panicking right now. Garza for Olt sounds nice.

[Guest]

Bourjos will cost more than Marmol, I'd think. Plenty of teams will be inquiring, thats for sure. If we pay Marmol's deal, I guess I could see something like Marmol and Szczur and/or Vitters for him.

 

I'm not sure what's left of the Angels farm system, but would a package involving Bourjos and Conger for Garza be acceptable? We could always expand the deal to include Marmol.

 

No thanks. The Rangers have to be absolutely panicking right now. Garza for Olt sounds nice.

 

I'm not sold enough on Olt to do that.

[Careless]

That's asking for an awful lot to go right, and assuming that the CBA won't continue to restrict the financial advantages Dodger money would infer.

 

It's pretty Cub-like to be the last to the table on those sorts of competitive advantages, right as they are shut down.

 

I think the biggest thing to worry about would be the TV money thing going away before we can take advantage of it.

 

We should be fine in getting market value for the WGN games package, but it's the fact that the CSN Chicago ones that don't end until after 2019 that worry me. We may very well have ala carte TV channels by then.

 

Obviously you could get more $$$ for the whole package, so I'd expect them to sign a short-term deal for the TV rights to the WGN games.

WGN will still be a crap deal, relatively speaking. They don't have the ability to get high carriage fees in the Chicago area because they broadcast here, and they have no leverage to ask for them outside of Chicago because the Cubs aren't popular enough there and they'd just be booted off cable. They're just worth ad revenue to WGN

[Guest]

That's asking for an awful lot to go right, and assuming that the CBA won't continue to restrict the financial advantages Dodger money would infer.

 

It's pretty Cub-like to be the last to the table on those sorts of competitive advantages, right as they are shut down.

 

I think the biggest thing to worry about would be the TV money thing going away before we can take advantage of it.

 

We should be fine in getting market value for the WGN games package, but it's the fact that the CSN Chicago ones that don't end until after 2019 that worry me. We may very well have ala carte TV channels by then.

 

Obviously you could get more $$$ for the whole package, so I'd expect them to sign a short-term deal for the TV rights to the WGN games.

WGN will still be a crap deal, relatively speaking. They don't have the ability to get high carriage fees in the Chicago area because they broadcast here, and they have no leverage to ask for them outside of Chicago because the Cubs aren't popular enough there and they'd just be booted off cable. They're just worth ad revenue to WGN

 

Are you assuming those games would stay on WGN?

[jersey cubs fan]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I don't get the shock.

[Guest]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I don't get the shock.

 

Yea, not remotely.

[SouthSideRyan]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

Yes let's laugh at all the teams spending money and pretend that revenue streams of baseball haven't skyrocketed. We're getting the best value 1 year deals can buy.

[SouthSideRyan]

That's asking for an awful lot to go right, and assuming that the CBA won't continue to restrict the financial advantages Dodger money would infer.

 

It's pretty Cub-like to be the last to the table on those sorts of competitive advantages, right as they are shut down.

 

I think the biggest thing to worry about would be the TV money thing going away before we can take advantage of it.

 

We should be fine in getting market value for the WGN games package, but it's the fact that the CSN Chicago ones that don't end until after 2019 that worry me. We may very well have ala carte TV channels by then.

 

Obviously you could get more $$$ for the whole package, so I'd expect them to sign a short-term deal for the TV rights to the WGN games.

WGN will still be a crap deal, relatively speaking. They don't have the ability to get high carriage fees in the Chicago area because they broadcast here, and they have no leverage to ask for them outside of Chicago because the Cubs aren't popular enough there and they'd just be booted off cable. They're just worth ad revenue to WGN

 

Yeah, we don't have the national fanbase that the Reds do, so our deal will probably suck. What the hell are you talking about?

[Guest]

That's asking for an awful lot to go right, and assuming that the CBA won't continue to restrict the financial advantages Dodger money would infer.

 

It's pretty Cub-like to be the last to the table on those sorts of competitive advantages, right as they are shut down.

 

I think the biggest thing to worry about would be the TV money thing going away before we can take advantage of it.

 

We should be fine in getting market value for the WGN games package, but it's the fact that the CSN Chicago ones that don't end until after 2019 that worry me. We may very well have ala carte TV channels by then.

 

Obviously you could get more $$$ for the whole package, so I'd expect them to sign a short-term deal for the TV rights to the WGN games.

WGN will still be a crap deal, relatively speaking. They don't have the ability to get high carriage fees in the Chicago area because they broadcast here, and they have no leverage to ask for them outside of Chicago because the Cubs aren't popular enough there and they'd just be booted off cable. They're just worth ad revenue to WGN

 

Yeah, we don't have the national fanbase that the Reds do, so our deal will probably suck. What the hell are you talking about?

 

I think he thinks those games are going to remain on WGN and be broadcast locally OTA. I don't really think that's the case at all.

[Cubswin11]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I wouldn't have minded the Cubs matching that at all. He probably wanted an NTC though.

That seems like a reasonable deal for Dempster. I don't get the shock/laughs. I certainly would have taken him back on that, but like you said NTC could have been an issue. I would assume the Cubs would only offer him a partial NTC at most. But doesn't he have 10/5 rights by now?

[Guest]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I wouldn't have minded the Cubs matching that at all. He probably wanted an NTC though.

That seems like a reasonable deal for Dempster. I don't get the shock/laughs. I certainly would have taken him back on that, but like you said NTC could have been an issue. I would assume the Cubs would only offer him a partial NTC at most. But doesn't he have 10/5 rights by now?

 

Do you know what 10/5 rights are?

[Clem Fandango]

Bourjos will cost more than Marmol, I'd think. Plenty of teams will be inquiring, thats for sure. If we pay Marmol's deal, I guess I could see something like Marmol and Szczur and/or Vitters for him.

 

I'm not sure what's left of the Angels farm system, but would a package involving Bourjos and Conger for Garza be acceptable? We could always expand the deal to include Marmol.

 

No thanks. The Rangers have to be absolutely panicking right now. Garza for Olt sounds nice.

 

I'm not sold enough on Olt to do that.

 

I'm sold enough on the fact that Garza probably isn't going to be a Cub after next season, though, and he's not a sure bet to bounce back to a desirable trading chip after this injury. If they can get Olt for Garza right now then I'd do it, honestly. Whether or not Olt is a legit bat at 3B, his defense is still good and he represents far greater upside offensively than anything we can put there now and we'd have him for another 5+ years or so. I'd take that in exchange for one more year of an uncertain Matt Garza, personally. Especially when we can still go out and sign another FA pitcher (ala Marcum, Liriano, or any other comparable pitcher) to replace Garza if need be.

[Guest]

Bourjos will cost more than Marmol, I'd think. Plenty of teams will be inquiring, thats for sure. If we pay Marmol's deal, I guess I could see something like Marmol and Szczur and/or Vitters for him.

 

I'm not sure what's left of the Angels farm system, but would a package involving Bourjos and Conger for Garza be acceptable? We could always expand the deal to include Marmol.

 

No thanks. The Rangers have to be absolutely panicking right now. Garza for Olt sounds nice.

 

I'm not sold enough on Olt to do that.

 

I'm sold enough on the fact that Garza probably isn't going to be a Cub after next season, though, and he's not a sure bet to bounce back to a desirable trading chip after this injury. If they can get Olt for Garza right now then I'd do it, honestly. Whether or not Olt is a legit bat at 3B, his defense is still good and he represents far greater upside offensively than anything we can put there now and we'd have him for another 5+ years or so. I'd take that in exchange for one more year of an uncertain Matt Garza, personally. Especially when we can still go out and sign another FA pitcher (ala Marcum, Liriano, or any other comparable pitcher) to replace Garza if need be.

 

That's fair if you're legitimately concerned about Garza's ability to pitch (and pitch well) next year. I guess I'm just not.

[davell]

The Dempster deal is solid.

[Cubswin11]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I wouldn't have minded the Cubs matching that at all. He probably wanted an NTC though.

That seems like a reasonable deal for Dempster. I don't get the shock/laughs. I certainly would have taken him back on that, but like you said NTC could have been an issue. I would assume the Cubs would only offer him a partial NTC at most. But doesn't he have 10/5 rights by now?

 

Do you know what 10/5 rights are?

I meant the 10 not the 5 (obviously he can't have the 5 part as he was on 2 teams last year and doesn't have the whole 5 years on one team thing going on ), he's been in the league at least 10 years right?

[davell]

I want the Rangers to sign a FA, not trade Profar+ and get Stanton.

[Guest]

hahahahahahahah

 

I wouldn't have minded the Cubs matching that at all. He probably wanted an NTC though.

That seems like a reasonable deal for Dempster. I don't get the shock/laughs. I certainly would have taken him back on that, but like you said NTC could have been an issue. I would assume the Cubs would only offer him a partial NTC at most. But doesn't he have 10/5 rights by now?

 

Do you know what 10/5 rights are?

I meant the 10 not the 5 (obviously he can't have the 5 part as he was on 2 teams last year and doesn't have the whole 5 years on one team thing going on ), he's been in the league at least 10 years right?

 

He needs both.

[Cubswin11]

[quote name="Cubswin11"

That seems like a reasonable deal for Dempster. I don't get the shock/laughs. I certainly would have taken him back on that' date=' but like you said NTC could have been an issue. I would assume the Cubs would only offer him a partial NTC at most. But doesn't he have 10/5 rights by now?[/quote]

 

Do you know what 10/5 rights are?

I meant the 10 not the 5 (obviously he can't have the 5 part as he was on 2 teams last year and doesn't have the whole 5 years on one team thing going on ), he's been in the league at least 10 years right?

 

He needs both.

I did not know that, I thought it could be one or the other.