Cubs after Anibal Sanchez? (Signs with Tiger 5/$80mil)

[Sammy Sofa]

Theo and Jed weren't hired because they bring a bonus to our payroll budget. They were brought in because they know how to squeeze the most out of our resources. The constant refrain of "well just keep upping the offer" is completely missing the point.

 

What a ridiculous post.

 

Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment.

 

Great call; I want the Cubs to be willing to go six years or add a few million on to the rumored contract offer to Anibal Sanchez and that suddenly means I'm cool beans with with any size contract possible.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

ABTY over at PSD even said he heard the EJackson was still possible even if Sanchez DID sign with us..Adding Sanchez and EJaxx to our rotation would be stellar

 

It'd be interesting. It'd mean Samardzija, Garza or Wood are traded, or we didn't really promise Baker and Feldman rotation spots.

 

I'm thinking that Beliveau's DFA maybe says something about their plans for the rotation. Wood as long-man/6th starter/2nd LHP in the pen would be a good way to consolidate some roles in a bullpen that's already currently committed to Marmol/Fuji/Camp/Russell/Rondon

 

I wondered about that too. I'm just not sure how easy it will be to coordinate the simultaneous roles, because 2nd lefty is frequently a short-stint guy, not a long man.

 

Plus, I think it's almost safe to assume that 6th starter is just a permanent spot in our rotation next season.

[SouthSideRyan]

This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO.

 

I can be mad at them for not putting on a team on the field that makes them appealing to free agents for reasons other than "We're the only place you can get a starting job."

 

Yes, because turning the 2011 Cubs into the 2012 Tigers by 2013 would have been a realistic expectation. By your logic, they shouldn't be able to sign anyone ever again.

 

I think potential FAs problem is they tried to turn the 2011 Cubs into the 2003 Tigers.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's still pretty easy to see a path towars Soler's contract being a bargain. (Though admittedly, Concepcion looks like a huge mistake).

 

Given the structure of his contract, it seems almost impossible for Soler's contract to be a bargain. I mean, he's still plenty worth having if he turns out to be a great hitter, but he won't be much of a bargain.

 

 

Do you see Anibal Sanchez at 6/$90m as better than say, Edwin Jackson at 4/$48m?

 

At a certain point there's a better use of the resources.

 

I'd rather have Jackson at that price than Sanchez at 5/75. But really, I just want to make sure that the end answer isn't "nothing."

[hawkeyecub]

ABTY over at PSD even said he heard the EJackson was still possible even if Sanchez DID sign with us..Adding Sanchez and EJaxx to our rotation would be stellar

 

It'd be interesting. It'd mean Samardzija, Garza or Wood are traded, or we didn't really promise Baker and Feldman rotation spots.

 

I'm thinking that Beliveau's DFA maybe says something about their plans for the rotation. Wood as long-man/6th starter/2nd LHP in the pen would be a good way to consolidate some roles in a bullpen that's already currently committed to Marmol/Fuji/Camp/Russell/Rondon

 

That would get me way too excited that we may actually have a chance at competing for something this year.

[Guest]

ABTY over at PSD even said he heard the EJackson was still possible even if Sanchez DID sign with us..Adding Sanchez and EJaxx to our rotation would be stellar

 

It'd be interesting. It'd mean Samardzija, Garza or Wood are traded, or we didn't really promise Baker and Feldman rotation spots.

 

I'm thinking that Beliveau's DFA maybe says something about their plans for the rotation. Wood as long-man/6th starter/2nd LHP in the pen would be a good way to consolidate some roles in a bullpen that's already currently committed to Marmol/Fuji/Camp/Russell/Rondon

 

I wondered about that too. I'm just not sure how easy it will be to coordinate the simultaneous roles, because 2nd lefty is frequently a short-stint guy, not a long man.

 

Plus, I think it's almost safe to assume that 6th starter is just a permanent spot in our rotation next season.

 

I'm completely spitballing here, but anecdotally it would seem that there aren't too many games where both a 2nd lefty and a long man/mop-up guy are needed. You might have to make some decisions on when to keep Wood fresh if there hasn't been a recent disaster start, but that's not so different than juggling the usage of any non-late inning reliever.

[Gilby]

Theo and Jed weren't hired because they bring a bonus to our payroll budget. They were brought in because they know how to squeeze the most out of our resources. The constant refrain of "well just keep upping the offer" is completely missing the point.

 

Until it's a prospect. We can lap the market on Concepcion or Soler, and that's just pure coolness.

 

There is a large difference between $6 million spread over 5 years, $30 million spread over 9 years, and, say, $80-$100 million over 5 years.

[sneakypower]

This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO.

 

I can be mad at them for not putting on a team on the field that makes them appealing to free agents for reasons other than "We're the only place you can get a starting job."

 

Yes, because turning the 2011 Cubs into the 2012 Tigers by 2013 would have been a realistic expectation. By your logic, they shouldn't be able to sign anyone ever again.

 

I think potential FAs problem is they tried to turn the 2011 Cubs into the 2003 Tigers.

explain.

[Rob]

Theo and Jed weren't hired because they bring a bonus to our payroll budget. They were brought in because they know how to squeeze the most out of our resources. The constant refrain of "well just keep upping the offer" is completely missing the point.

 

What a ridiculous post.

 

Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment.

 

Great call; I want the Cubs to be willing to go six years or add a few million on to the rumored contract offer to Anibal Sanchez and that suddenly means I'm cool beans with with any size contract possible.

 

I've never seen anything from you to suggest otherwise.

 

The Cubs can't come over the top on EVERYBODY. Even a well-run farm system will have its dry spells. Having some flexibility is important.

 

We can now be pretty sure the dual fronts thing isn't a myth. If the Cubs don't get Sanchez, they'll probably get Jackson at a relative bargain. Or maybe Marcum or somebody similar. I just can't bring myself to get bent out of shape at losing Sanchez when the terms leave my comfort level.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We can now be pretty sure the dual fronts thing isn't a myth.

 

That's unfortunate, because the alternative was that they were trying on dual fronts and sucked at it.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I'm not even that excited about Sanchez, but if it gets a lot of the board to shut the hell up about the Cubs' future and their slow moving plans, it will be worth it.

 

For the record, I think Sanchez is a fine pitcher. But I don't really care about him at $15 million for five seasons, and I'm sure as heck not interested in Nuts' idea -- even though he's still my favorite dude who posts on this site -- about going to six years.

 

He, and some of you other impatient bastards, were also willing to give Pujols his 10 years and $30 million per last season. If we had done that, we probably couldn't spend on Sanchez any way.

[Elrhino]

 

This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO.

 

Or, you make damn sure you don't get off the phone without a signed deal. You do enough to get guys to not try and get someone else to match

 

This is precisely what the Angels appeared to have done on the Hamilton deal. The Rangers had a long standing agreement with Hamilton's agent that they would get a chance to match any offer. They even had a meeting scheduled with Hamilton's agents this afternoon. The Angels apparently approached Hamilton's agent and told them what they were willing to pay, including a 5th year, and wanted a straight up yes or no answer. If they found out they were shopping the offer around or trying to get another team into a bidding war they were rescinding the offer.

[Sammy Sofa]

Theo and Jed weren't hired because they bring a bonus to our payroll budget. They were brought in because they know how to squeeze the most out of our resources. The constant refrain of "well just keep upping the offer" is completely missing the point.

 

What a ridiculous post.

 

Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment.

 

Great call; I want the Cubs to be willing to go six years or add a few million on to the rumored contract offer to Anibal Sanchez and that suddenly means I'm cool beans with with any size contract possible.

 

I've never seen anything from you to suggest otherwise.

 

So what? I have absolutely no clue what you've ever said about any deal ever.

 

The Cubs can't come over the top on EVERYBODY. Even a well-run farm system will have its dry spells. Having some flexibility is important.

 

We can now be pretty sure the dual fronts thing isn't a myth. If the Cubs don't get Sanchez, they'll probably get Jackson at a relative bargain. Or maybe Marcum or somebody similar. I just can't bring myself to get bent out of shape at losing Sanchez when the terms leave my comfort level.

 

It's just yet another in an ever growing list of near-misses. Good intentions aren't enough.

[SouthSideRyan]

This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO.

 

I can be mad at them for not putting on a team on the field that makes them appealing to free agents for reasons other than "We're the only place you can get a starting job."

 

Yes, because turning the 2011 Cubs into the 2012 Tigers by 2013 would have been a realistic expectation. By your logic, they shouldn't be able to sign anyone ever again.

 

I think potential FAs problem is they tried to turn the 2011 Cubs into the 2003 Tigers.

explain.

 

Players don't want to go to a terrible team for market value.

[Rob]

It's still pretty easy to see a path towars Soler's contract being a bargain. (Though admittedly, Concepcion looks like a huge mistake).

 

Given the structure of his contract, it seems almost impossible for Soler's contract to be a bargain. I mean, he's still plenty worth having if he turns out to be a great hitter, but he won't be much of a bargain.

 

If he uses that opt out, I'd say we already had a bargain.

 

 

Do you see Anibal Sanchez at 6/$90m as better than say, Edwin Jackson at 4/$48m?

 

At a certain point there's a better use of the resources.

 

I'd rather have Jackson at that price than Sanchez at 5/75. But really, I just want to make sure that the end answer isn't "nothing."

 

Agreed on that point. I want to see the resources used somewhere. But I want to get as much out of them as possible.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not even that excited about Sanchez, but if it gets a lot of the board to shut the hell up about the Cubs' future and their slow moving plans, it will be worth it.

 

For the record, I think Sanchez is a fine pitcher. But I don't really care about him at $15 million for five seasons, and I'm sure as heck not interested in Nuts' idea -- even though he's still my favorite dude who posts on this site -- about going to six years.

 

He, and some of you other impatient bastards, were also willing to give Pujols his 10 years and $30 million per last season. If we had done that, we probably couldn't spend on Sanchez any way.

 

If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction.

[Guest]

 

So what? I have absolutely no clue what you've ever said about any deal ever.

 

That's too bad. He's one of the smarter/better posters on here.

[Sammy Sofa]

Players don't want to go to a terrible team for market value.

 

Exactly. They're approaching this like they can present a "fair offer" as if they have something else besides money/years to entice FA's here right now. They don't. Odds are you have to pay extra to bring people to a bad team.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO.

 

Or, you make damn sure you don't get off the phone without a signed deal. You do enough to get guys to not try and get someone else to match

 

This is precisely what the Angels appeared to have done on the Hamilton deal. The Rangers had a long standing agreement with Hamilton's agent that they would get a chance to match any offer. They even had a meeting scheduled with Hamilton's agents this afternoon. The Angels apparently approached Hamilton's agent and told them what they were willing to pay, including a 5th year, and wanted a straight up yes or no answer. If they found out they were shopping the offer around or trying to get another team into a bidding war they were rescinding the offer.

 

1 maybe easier to do that when you're a team with a WS lately and a [expletive] load of talent that strongly suggests you're going to the playoffs this year, and

 

2 easier when you're laying out $125m for what may be the last 5 years of Hamilton's career. Theo isn't looking to make Sanchez one of the highest paid players so he doesn't have that leverage.

 

The cubs ain't the angels folks. Let's try to keep some perspective.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

So what? I have absolutely no clue what you've ever said about any deal ever.

 

That's too bad. He's one of the smarter/better posters on here.

 

I have no idea what anyone here has ever proposed for any deal unless it's in front of me. I have absolutely no desire or need to retain something so useless. Remembering what Rob thinks Prince Fielder should have gone for has absolutely zero bearing on the quality of my knowledge of baseball.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I'm not even that excited about Sanchez, but if it gets a lot of the board to shut the hell up about the Cubs' future and their slow moving plans, it will be worth it.

 

For the record, I think Sanchez is a fine pitcher. But I don't really care about him at $15 million for five seasons, and I'm sure as heck not interested in Nuts' idea -- even though he's still my favorite dude who posts on this site -- about going to six years.

 

He, and some of you other impatient bastards, were also willing to give Pujols his 10 years and $30 million per last season. If we had done that, we probably couldn't spend on Sanchez any way.

 

If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction.

 

So, people just wanted them to be the Dodgers of this season? Sign Pujols and a few other big guns and let's go for it?

 

That's fine, but that just wasn't going to happen unless they were the Dodgers of this season. And, nobody has really ever been the Dodgers of this season.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Players don't want to go to a terrible team for market value.

 

Exactly. They're approaching this like they can present a "fair offer" as if they have something else besides money/years to entice FA's here right now. They don't. Odds are you have to pay extra to bring people to a bad team.

 

Then I'm willing to move on and get Marcum or somebody else on a one-year deal, wait for our prospects to grow another season and get closer, and then sign another Marcum to another one year deal next year.

 

Because, to me, Sanchez and Marcum are the same type of pitcher.

[Rob]

Edit Edited December 14, 2012 by Rob

[Tryptamine]

Players don't want to go to a terrible team for market value.

 

Exactly. They're approaching this like they can present a "fair offer" as if they have something else besides money/years to entice FA's here right now. They don't. Odds are you have to pay extra to bring people to a bad team.

 

Then I'm willing to move on and get Marcum or somebody else on a one-year deal, wait for our prospects to grow another season and get closer, and then sign another Marcum to another one year deal next year.

 

Because, to me, Sanchez and Marcum are the same type of pitcher.

 

Except that Sanchez is one hell of a lot better.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not even that excited about Sanchez, but if it gets a lot of the board to shut the hell up about the Cubs' future and their slow moving plans, it will be worth it.

 

For the record, I think Sanchez is a fine pitcher. But I don't really care about him at $15 million for five seasons, and I'm sure as heck not interested in Nuts' idea -- even though he's still my favorite dude who posts on this site -- about going to six years.

 

He, and some of you other impatient bastards, were also willing to give Pujols his 10 years and $30 million per last season. If we had done that, we probably couldn't spend on Sanchez any way.

 

If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction.

 

So, people just wanted them to be the Dodgers of this season? Sign Pujols and a few other big guns and let's go for it?

 

That's fine, but that just wasn't going to happen unless they were the Dodgers of this season. And, nobody has really ever been the Dodgers of this season.

 

Except the Yankees or the Red Sox, and now the Angels. The Cubs are a big money team. I think the Ricketts are choosing to go (relatively) cheap until the stadium and other constructions and the TV deal are ironed out even though they don't have to. I think the FO are content to wait that out. Yes, I want the Cubs to spend big and build smart from within; the two are not mutually exclusive. I gain no extra pleasure out of seeing a winning team made for less money than another. I just want a good team.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Sammy Sofa