Edwin Jackson Signs w/ Cubs: 4 years/$52 M

[Tryptamine]

we're paying E. Jackson, Baker, Villanueva, Feldman just $5M more this year than Greinke's AAV

 

Baker+Edwin+Feldman+Villanueva=73.5M

Anibal Sanchez=80M

[Beer Kaese]

We are more aggressive than I anticipated, which is fine because we have cash. Adding Jackson could get us to 81 wins. That, when combined with the advancing youth, makes us an attractive destination for free agents next year. We are going to get good fast, stop thinking like we are a small market team.

[davell]

It's at least possible they saw enough of Upton in Tampa to where they preferred Bourn or other options to him.

 

That's entirely possible. It's part of why I'm just kind of whining rather than being really pissed off. It's just kind of odd to me since Upton seems like much more a "Theo type of player" than Bourn.

My guess is the difference in makeup possibly? Bourn is widely viewed as a plus makeup type, while Upton is iffy.

[dew1679666265]

It's at least possible they saw enough of Upton in Tampa to where they preferred Bourn or other options to him.

 

That's entirely possible. It's part of why I'm just kind of whining rather than being really pissed off. It's just kind of odd to me since Upton seems like much more a "Theo type of player" than Bourn.

My guess is the difference in makeup possibly? Bourn is widely viewed as a plus makeup type, while Upton is iffy.

 

I really hope we're not making personnel decisions based on makeup and similar intangibles (with the exception of the extremes).

[davell]

Well, I obviously don't see makeup as an either/or thing, but if you've got two guys rated closely, it can certainly help to be the determining factor.

[sneakypower]

ESPN Stats & Info ‏@ESPNStatsInfo

Edwin Jackson had highest "miss rate" on his slider of any pitcher who qualified for ERA title. Hitters missed on 49% of swings vs the pitch

[Gingerballs Lives]

We are more aggressive than I anticipated, which is fine because we have cash. Adding Jackson could get us to 81 wins. That, when combined with the advancing youth, makes us an attractive destination for free agents next year. We are going to get good fast, stop thinking like we are a small market team.

 

Agreed. Both fronts coming together nicely, I think.

[dew1679666265]

Well, I obviously don't see makeup as an either/or thing, but if you've got two guys rated closely, it can certainly help to be the determining factor.

 

If it's used as a tiebreaker of sorts, that's fine. And if they simply feel more comfortable with Bourn than Upton, I won't be angry. With the information I have, however, I'd prefer Upton.

[neely crenshaw]

It seems the market for bourn is drying up. Who else might be interested? I know with his agent and age, they'll want to make this as long and as lucrative a deal as possible because as a speed guy he isn't getting big money at 32 or 33.

So I am guessing at least 4 and probably pushing for 5 years.

Just don't know who is going to offer that.

[Guest]

It seems the market for bourn is drying up. Who else might be interested? I know with his agent and age, they'll want to make this as long and as lucrative a deal as possible because as a speed guy he isn't getting big money at 32 or 33.

So I am guessing at least 4 and probably pushing for 5 years.

Just don't know who is going to offer that.

 

The Mariners are supposedly involved.

[neely crenshaw]

That's not too bad if we are actually interested. They aren't much closer to contending so that's a even playing field. I wouldn't think that Bourn would bring enough of a buzz that it would cause either team to get in a bidding war for him.

[Thed Hoyerstein]

We are more aggressive than I anticipated, which is fine because we have cash. Adding Jackson could get us to 81 wins. That, when combined with the advancing youth, makes us an attractive destination for free agents next year. We are going to get good fast, stop thinking like we are a small market team.

 

Agreed. Both fronts coming together nicely, I think.

 

wapwapwapwapwapwap

[neely crenshaw]

We are taking steps but we have a ways to go on both fronts. We look like we have no one ready for the bigs any time soon, maybe Jackson. Pitching help is at least 2 years out. Real offensive help is more than that.

Don't get me wrong on Jackson, but he was the #5 starter on the nationals. Yes, right now he is our #2 but we didn't sign verlander.

We are much improved over the end of last year but we are basically right back to where we started last season at, which did not play well. If things break right, (very right!) we could get to 75 wins.

[UK1679666180]

The Jackson signing (and the would be Sanchez signing) falls into the "long term acquisitions that are useful now and will be useful later" category that jives with the FO's stated plan. The pursuit of Sanchez and the Jackson signing should come as no surprise to those who were thinking clearly, though some here were pretty resolute in their opinion that we were going to see a steady stream of 1-year deals until 2015.

 

So amidst all the legitimate celebration, the question has to be asked: Why didn't we make any of these signings last offseason?

 

I'm starting to think they really were trying to tank year 1 for draft picks.

 

Either that, or the Dominican facility came from payroll.

 

 

They weren't going to commit and overspend long-term contracts on an organization that they did not have a full understanding of. We all know they're detailed oriented and regardless of how preparation much and resources they had on the Cubs prior to Nov. 2011, they couldn't make enough of an educated guess on the organization to make long-term commitments that could be more than what the player was likely worth. I'm sure they values on Fielder, Darvish, Cespedes, etc. but were not willing to match. Obviously, they have a better feel and are more willing to go beyond the same limitations of last year and have done so.

 

We'll see if they do so with Bourn, I'm not a proponent of it unless Boras sees the market as dead since Philly traded for Revere and the Cubs are the only primary suitor for a larger market and goes for a 1 year deal for 10-14 mil and waits for next year.

 

I guess it would depend on the length of the deal for Bourn, I don't want them paying 15+ mil (assuming pro-rated contract) for a 35-36yo, with avg. offensive skills with the bat and diminishing skills with his legs and glove. He's worth every penny for what he'll get in the short-term but extend that to his mid-30s and it becomes the unknown.

[Guest]

I don't think they will go after Bourn if he's looking for a long term contract.

[Warpticon]

I don't think they will go after Bourn if he's looking for a long term contract.

 

I could see them giving him up to 4 years if the money is reasonable enough, or giving him a bit more annually on a shorter contract.

[Guest]

Jackson's deal includes an $8 million signing bonus with annual salaries of $11 million per year, according to a Cubs source.

 

awesome. take the 8 million out of unspent money from this year's budget, and it's like we've got him at 3/33 after this season.

[A New Era]

We are more aggressive than I anticipated, which is fine because we have cash. Adding Jackson could get us to 81 wins. That, when combined with the advancing youth, makes us an attractive destination for free agents next year. We are going to get good fast, stop thinking like we are a small market team.

 

Agreed. Both fronts coming together nicely, I think.

 

It's pretty exciting what they've added to the tippy top of the system in just one year. One terribad season last year gives us one more really nice draft and great budget to add a couple top international guys. Now with Jackson it appears the FO is ready to start that slow climb upward on the ML front aswell.

[A New Era]

I don't think they will go after Bourn if he's looking for a long term contract.

 

I could see them giving him up to 4 years if the money is reasonable enough, or giving him a bit more annually on a shorter contract.

 

I'm "tourn" on Bourn. On one hand I think at 4 years, he'll still provide great value the first couple years with only marginal decline the last couple. But it will cost a second round pick. I think I could be convinced to be happy either way. On one hand Bourn is another solid bat who provides a different type of offense with great defense I hear, and is a nice piece to add to the ever improving ML team. On the other hand, the 2nd pick netted us Underwood and Vogelbach, and we will have a very HIGH 2nd round pick next year.

 

Both of those scenerios are good, either add a high quality guy to the ML team, or add what will likely be a high quality guy that will probably slot into our top 15 in a great system.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't think they will go after Bourn if he's looking for a long term contract.

 

I could see them giving him up to 4 years if the money is reasonable enough, or giving him a bit more annually on a shorter contract.

 

I'm "tourn" on Bourn. On one hand I think at 4 years, he'll still provide great value the first couple years with only marginal decline the last couple. But it will cost a second round pick. I think I could be convinced to be happy either way. On one hand Bourn is another solid bat who provides a different type of offense with great defense I hear, and is a nice piece to add to the ever improving ML team. On the other hand, the 2nd pick netted us Underwood and Vogelbach, and we will have a very HIGH 2nd round pick next year.

 

Both of those scenerios are good, either add a high quality guy to the ML team, or add what will likely be a high quality guy that will probably slot into our top 15 in a great system.

 

I wouldn't call Bourn a solid bat myself. The guy is basically a tick below average as a hitter. His position provides the value, but his bat really doesn't. Even among CF he just provides average production at the plate. His value comes via the much less reliable assumptions made about his defense and baserunning. It may or may not be real productivity. I don't see that value as real myself, although I wouldn't mind if they signed him at an extremely lower price point than has been discussed to date. He's just not worth those extreme numbers plus losing a pick.

[Guest]

Bourn has averaged 50+ stolen bases with an 80+% success rate for 5 years now. That production seems plenty real to me.

[KingCubsFan]

Bourn has averaged 50+ stolen bases with an 80+% success rate for 5 years now. That production seems plenty real to me.

Offensively, he's basically DeJesus. Not sure if stolen bases+defense make him worth $10-11 million more than DeJesus.

[Guest]

Bourn has averaged 50+ stolen bases with an 80+% success rate for 5 years now. That production seems plenty real to me.

Offensively, he's basically DeJesus. Not sure if stolen bases+defense make him worth $10-11 million more than DeJesus.

 

I don't think stolen bases are some sort of sorcery that is hard to get a handle on like some people consider defense to be.

 

That's a pretty clear cut and measurable contribution.

[dew1679666265]

I wouldn't call Bourn a solid bat myself. The guy is basically a tick below average as a hitter. His position provides the value, but his bat really doesn't. Even among CF he just provides average production at the plate. His value comes via the much less reliable assumptions made about his defense and baserunning. It may or may not be real productivity. I don't see that value as real myself, although I wouldn't mind if they signed him at an extremely lower price point than has been discussed to date. He's just not worth those extreme numbers plus losing a pick.

 

I'm hardly in love with Bourn as the answer in CF, but even with my rather lukewarm view toward him, I'm not at all concerned with giving up a 2nd round pick for him. If it were a first rounder, that'd be a different issue, but draft picks in MLB are such a crapshoot that if you can guarantee yourself even the average/above average production that Bourn will give you, it's well worth giving up a second round pick.

 

It's the money vs likelihood of decline that scares me about Bourn.

[jersey cubs fan]

I wouldn't call Bourn a solid bat myself. The guy is basically a tick below average as a hitter. His position provides the value, but his bat really doesn't. Even among CF he just provides average production at the plate. His value comes via the much less reliable assumptions made about his defense and baserunning. It may or may not be real productivity. I don't see that value as real myself, although I wouldn't mind if they signed him at an extremely lower price point than has been discussed to date. He's just not worth those extreme numbers plus losing a pick.

 

I'm hardly in love with Bourn as the answer in CF, but even with my rather lukewarm view toward him, I'm not at all concerned with giving up a 2nd round pick for him. If it were a first rounder, that'd be a different issue, but draft picks in MLB are such a crapshoot that if you can guarantee yourself even the average/above average production that Bourn will give you, it's well worth giving up a second round pick.

 

It's the money vs likelihood of decline that scares me about Bourn.

 

It's the draft pick and the financial flexibility that comes with that pick's allocation that concern me.