The 2012 Offseason Thread

[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, 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.

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

Edited December 13, 2012 by Cubswin11

[XZero771679666304]

Apparently the Hamilton deal is 5/125

 

hahahahahaha

 

Wow.

 

All the talk around Hamilton was indicating he'd likely have to settle for a 3 year deal, and now this. If those are the actual terms and if the contract is guaranteed, this is a desperation move after losing out on Greinke, imo.

[Cubswin11]

Apparently the Hamilton deal is 5/125

 

hahahahahaha

 

Wow.

 

All the talk around Hamilton was indicating he'd likely have to settle for a 3 year deal, and now this. If those are the actual terms and if the contract is guaranteed, this is a desperation move after losing out on Greinke, imo.

All MLB contracts are guaranteed

[XZero771679666304]

2/26.5 Dempster to Boston :shock:

hahahahahahahah

 

I don't get the shock.

 

 

No, that's a perfectly reasonable deal.

[XZero771679666304]

Apparently the Hamilton deal is 5/125

 

hahahahahaha

 

Wow.

 

All the talk around Hamilton was indicating he'd likely have to settle for a 3 year deal, and now this. If those are the actual terms and if the contract is guaranteed, this is a desperation move after losing out on Greinke, imo.

All MLB contracts are guaranteed

 

I mean with no incentive clauses.

[Guest]

@toriihunter48 I was told money was tight but I guess the Arte had money hidden under a Mattress. Business is business but don't lie.

[Cubswin11]

Apparently the Hamilton deal is 5/125

 

hahahahahaha

 

Wow.

 

All the talk around Hamilton was indicating he'd likely have to settle for a 3 year deal, and now this. If those are the actual terms and if the contract is guaranteed, this is a desperation move after losing out on Greinke, imo.

All MLB contracts are guaranteed

 

I mean with no incentive clauses.

Gotcha

[davell]

We DFA'd Beliveau, according to Rotoworld.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We DFA'd Beliveau, according to Rotoworld.

 

Russell is our only lefty reliever now, right?

[mookie]

I like the Hamilton signing. Go Angels!

[Cubswin11]

We DFA'd Beliveau, according to Rotoworld.

 

Russell is our only lefty reliever now, right?

Rusin and Raley......... but if we include them I guess we have to include every left handed person that is in the crowd as a potential LH RP as the talent is virtually the same

[SouthSideRyan]

We DFA'd Beliveau, according to Rotoworld.

 

He'd have been about my 6th choice

[Clem Fandango]

The Rangers might be willing to give a three-year contract to free agent first baseman Adam LaRoche, according to Mark Zuckerman of CSNWashington.com.

The Rangers lost out to the Dodgers on Zack Greinke and the Angels for Josh Hamilton, so they're desperately searching for other ways to improve their roster for 2013. LaRoche, 33, hit .271/.343/.510 with 33 homers and 100 RBI in 154 games this past season for the Nationals while earning Gold Glove honors for his defense. He's only been offered two-year contracts thus far.

 

If they get LaRoche then Olt will be blocked at nearly every position/spot he can play. I assume they'd switch Moreland to DH, since Olt would represent a better return in a trade than Moreland would, and since Cruz will need to spend more time at DH to rest his legs Moreland would make a better part time DH than a guy who could be starting for someone else at 3B.

[Cubswin11]

The Rangers might be willing to give a three-year contract to free agent first baseman Adam LaRoche, according to Mark Zuckerman of CSNWashington.com.

The Rangers lost out to the Dodgers on Zack Greinke and the Angels for Josh Hamilton, so they're desperately searching for other ways to improve their roster for 2013. LaRoche, 33, hit .271/.343/.510 with 33 homers and 100 RBI in 154 games this past season for the Nationals while earning Gold Glove honors for his defense. He's only been offered two-year contracts thus far.

 

If they get LaRoche then Olt will be blocked at nearly every position/spot he can play. I assume they'd switch Moreland to DH, since Olt would represent a better return in a trade than Moreland would, and since Cruz will need to spend more time at DH to rest his legs Moreland would make a better part time DH than a guy who could be starting for someone else at 3B.

I could see the Rangers going after Stanton with some sort of package revolving around Olt + 1 of Andrus/Profar

[davell]

We DFA'd Beliveau, according to Rotoworld.

 

He'd have been about my 6th choice

Yeah, he wasn't my top choice either. If he clears though, it looks like we'll have him, Putnam, Gutierrez, likely Rosario(assuming we try what everyone else has been, but succeed) and maybe Chapman as guys we can roster at any point. We'll likely just have a revolving spot or two, to help combat the lack of flexibility due to carrying some guys we basically know aren't seeing the majors in 2013.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We make weird decisions about the back of the 40-man sometimes.

[davell]

After holding on to Castillo all year, I guess they're not ready to attempt passing him through yet. Personally, I think Campana is dealable for a nonroster flyer. Clevenger? May or may not pass through, but we'll likely need a 3rd C at some point. Rusin isn't even eligible yet to be DFA'd. We just picked Rosario up. Likely will try same thing with him Texas and Boston did(we know he'll clear AL now anyway). Concepcion? No clue if language in his deal even allows him to be dropped. Bottom line: We need to make a trade or two that clears 3-4 spots somehow.

[Little Slide Rooter]

In related news, we have 1 left handed reliever, unless they plan on using Raley or Wood in the pen. Not sure why we're clinging so tightly to Clevenger, Campana, Rusin, and Raley.

[Rob]

We make weird decisions about the back of the 40-man sometimes.

 

Theo always seemed to have a lot of churn on the back end of rosters. I'm okay with it. Most of these guys are pretty fungible.

[SouthSideRyan]

After holding on to Castillo all year, I guess they're not ready to attempt passing him through yet. Personally, I think Campana is dealable for a nonroster flyer. Clevenger? May or may not pass through, but we'll likely need a 3rd C at some point. Rusin isn't even eligible yet to be DFA'd. We just picked Rosario up. Likely will try same thing with him Texas and Boston did(we know he'll clear AL now anyway). Concepcion? No clue if language in his deal even allows him to be dropped. Bottom line: We need to make a trade or two that clears 3-4 spots somehow.

 

I wonder if Concepcion gets DFAd not long after the Cubans sign.

[davell]

After holding on to Castillo all year, I guess they're not ready to attempt passing him through yet. Personally, I think Campana is dealable for a nonroster flyer. Clevenger? May or may not pass through, but we'll likely need a 3rd C at some point. Rusin isn't even eligible yet to be DFA'd. We just picked Rosario up. Likely will try same thing with him Texas and Boston did(we know he'll clear AL now anyway). Concepcion? No clue if language in his deal even allows him to be dropped. Bottom line: We need to make a trade or two that clears 3-4 spots somehow.

 

I wonder if Concepcion gets DFAd not long after the Cubans sign.

I'd be fine with that. I guess I hold out a tad of hope he contracted mono long before they figured out he had it. He was looking good in EXST at first. That also means he needs to recover fully, which isn't a slam dunk. My guess is his contract must force us to keep him on it though, because he'd obviously pass through.

[davell]

Kaplan tweeted we are in on Mike Adams(want) and Villanueva(wanted earlier, no need for him now)

[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

 

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?

What part don't you understand? If WGN tells every cable company in the country "give us three dollars per month per customer or you can't carry WGNAmerica" they'll be laughed at and WGN will no longer be carried outside of the Chicago area. Inside the Chicago broadcast area, I don't believe they can even ask for a carriage fee.

 

So WGN won't be able to use the Cubs as leverage to get huge amounts in fees from cable companies the way Fox sports West (or whatever it's called) can from the 18 million people in their area. That's where most of the money is in these deals, not in the advertising revenue from broadcasting the games. And that's why LA is such a lucrative tv market for the cable company, despite the lousy ratings the Dodgers get.

 

And that's why I wouldn't be surprised if WGN loses the Cubs (and Sox) completely, at least until a hypothetical future where cable television goes a la carte

[SouthSideRyan]

The Cubs aren't required to re-up with WGN

[Guest]

What part don't you understand? If WGN tells every cable company in the country "give us three dollars per month per customer or you can't carry WGNAmerica" they'll be laughed at and WGN will no longer be carried outside of the Chicago area. Inside the Chicago broadcast area, I don't believe they can even ask for a carriage fee.

 

So WGN won't be able to use the Cubs as leverage to get huge amounts in fees from cable companies the way Fox sports West (or whatever it's called) can from the 18 million people in their area. That's where most of the money is in these deals, not in the advertising revenue from broadcasting the games. And that's why LA is such a lucrative tv market for the cable company, despite the lousy ratings the Dodgers get.

 

And that's why I wouldn't be surprised if WGN loses the Cubs (and Sox) completely, at least until a hypothetical future where cable television goes a la carte

 

 

 

Nobody is really talking about what WGN can get. We're talking about what the Cubs can get elsewhere (or at WGN, but obviously not likely for the reasons you point out) for the games WGN currently has the rights to.