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

[Guest]

Bourn

Castro

Rizzo

Soriano

Schierholtz/Sappelt

Castillo

Stewart

Barney

 

Samardzija, Garza, Jackson, Feldman, Baker/Wood/Vizcaino

 

Marmol, Fuji, Russell, Camp, Dolis, Bowden?, Rondon?, Wood?

 

 

Hmm...

 

DeJesus?

 

Whoops... I knew I was forgetting someone.

[Guest]

4 or 5 years seems unnecessary for an ok pitcher

 

He was worth close to 4 wins 3 out of the last 4 years and almost 3 last year. He's not just OK.

 

His contract is fairly likely to be a good value too.

[abuck1220]

man, just extend garza.

[mul21]

man, just extend garza.

 

If the ABTY rumblings from PSD are right, it sounds like they may not be convinced he's going to come back healthy.

[hawkeyecub]

Sign Jackson and Bourn and this offseason would be okay.

[Guest]

Sign Jackson and Bourn and this offseason would be okay.

 

that would be a great offseason

[pitchcs]

man, just extend garza.

 

I just don't think it's gonna happen. And I'm OK with that. I like Garza, but not for the price he's gonna command.

[Guest]

Want want want want want.

 

I'm having a fantasy that the real Theo Epstein just crashes in all of a sudden and makes some suave observation about how he's late but it's cool. We get Jackson, Bourn and do some awesome Rizzo-style trade and have an 84-win team going into the season.

 

I have no idea what it would take to acquire Bourjos or if the Angels are shopping him, but would you rather have Bourn at the contract he's likely to get (I'm assuming it would be at least the 5/75 Upton got) or trade for Bourjos?

[Guest]

wait, there are people on board with giving bourn 75 million? i understand his value, but no way i get close to that. maybe if he was 2 or 3 years younger.

[USSoccer]

wait, there are people on board with giving bourn 75 million? i understand his value, but no way i get close to that. maybe if he was 2 or 3 years younger.

 

If you want to buy anything better than average pitching on the market, it costs money. Which we have in theory. Right now in our "plan", I'd rather burn money that trade prospects from a not better than shallow pool of good.

[SABR Gamer]

wait, there are people on board with giving bourn 75 million? i understand his value, but no way i get close to that. maybe if he was 2 or 3 years younger.

 

If you want to buy anything better than average pitching on the market, it costs money. Which we have in theory. Right now in our "plan", I'd rather burn money that trade prospects from a not better than shallow pool of good.

 

Bourn doesn't pitch. He's not talking about Jackson. Jackson isn't sniffing 75 million.

[Cubswin11]

wait, there are people on board with giving bourn 75 million? i understand his value, but no way i get close to that. maybe if he was 2 or 3 years younger.

 

If you want to buy anything better than average pitching on the market, it costs money. Which we have in theory. Right now in our "plan", I'd rather burn money that trade prospects from a not better than shallow pool of good.

:-k

[Guest]

wait, there are people on board with giving bourn 75 million? i understand his value, but no way i get close to that. maybe if he was 2 or 3 years younger.

 

I'm curious to see the aging curve or rate of decline you're envisioning that doesn't have Bourn being worth that deal. He can have twice the average rate of decline starting now and would still be worth 5/75.

[USSoccer]

wait, there are people on board with giving bourn 75 million? i understand his value, but no way i get close to that. maybe if he was 2 or 3 years younger.

 

If you want to buy anything better than average pitching on the market, it costs money. Which we have in theory. Right now in our "plan", I'd rather burn money that trade prospects from a not better than shallow pool of good.

 

Bourn doesn't pitch. He's not talking about Jackson. Jackson isn't sniffing 75 million.

 

Hahahaha. I can totally read, I swear.

 

Poor reading skills aside, just replace "offense" with "pitching" and my sentence stands.

[Little Slide Rooter]

4 or 5 years seems unnecessary for an ok pitcher

 

True, but my fear is that he could be signed as our default ace. With the money we offered Sanchez, it could have been a starting point for a Garza extension. However, it could be that they've accepted that they wont be able to resign Garza, and as soon as we sign Jackson, Marcum, or whomever, we'll work on trading Garza. Instead of the impressive Garza/Shark/Jackson/Baker/Feldman rotation, we'll be looking at the less impressive Shark/Jackson/Baker/Feldman/Wood.

 

As for The Rangers, as I said, with the money they have, if they want Jackson, he's theirs. However, if the price gets higher than they want to pay, they could prefer to trade for a better option, and they certainly have the chips to do it. Perhaps that option could be Garza. Seeing as they're looking for a bat and a SP, I wonder what they'd give us for Garza and Soriano.

[jersey cubs fan]

man, just extend garza.

 

Are you saying to do this instead of signing Jackson? Extending Garza doesn't make this team any better. They have plenty of time and plenty of flexibility to worry about how to keep the juggernaut together.

[abuck1220]

man, just extend garza.

 

Are you saying to do this instead of signing Jackson? Extending Garza doesn't make this team any better. They have plenty of time and plenty of flexibility to worry about how to keep the juggernaut together.

 

i'm just saying i probably prefer garza to jackson if i'm choosing between the two (assuming garza is healthy). of course, having both is probably preferable, but they seem to be determined to trade garza.

 

given the garbage available in free agency next offseason, if they don't sign jackson and trade/don't extend garza, the cubs are looking at being pretty bad for the next couple years. unless they trade half the farm for some starting pitching.

[davell]

To me, Jackson likely comes in around half the price of Garza on an extension. I'd rather have Jackson and the package of prospects you can get for Garza(assuming he's healthy) and the extra flexibility to go get an actual ace as well.

[abuck1220]

To me, Jackson likely comes in around half the price of Garza on an extension. I'd rather have Jackson and the package of prospects you can get for Garza(assuming he's healthy) and the extra flexibility to go get an actual ace as well.

 

and who is that "actual ace" that you're going to get/sign?

[jersey cubs fan]

man, just extend garza.

 

Are you saying to do this instead of signing Jackson? Extending Garza doesn't make this team any better. They have plenty of time and plenty of flexibility to worry about how to keep the juggernaut together.

 

i'm just saying i probably prefer garza to jackson if i'm choosing between the two (assuming garza is healthy). of course, having both is probably preferable, but they seem to be determined to trade garza.

 

given the garbage available in free agency next offseason, if they don't sign jackson and trade/don't extend garza, the cubs are looking at being pretty bad for the next couple years. unless they trade half the farm for some starting pitching.

 

Well, if it has to be the choice I'd prefer Jackson and the prospects they get for Garza than just resigning Garza. But that doesn't have to be the choice. There's no reason they can't keep both, if they want to.

[abuck1220]

man, just extend garza.

 

Are you saying to do this instead of signing Jackson? Extending Garza doesn't make this team any better. They have plenty of time and plenty of flexibility to worry about how to keep the juggernaut together.

 

i'm just saying i probably prefer garza to jackson if i'm choosing between the two (assuming garza is healthy). of course, having both is probably preferable, but they seem to be determined to trade garza.

 

given the garbage available in free agency next offseason, if they don't sign jackson and trade/don't extend garza, the cubs are looking at being pretty bad for the next couple years. unless they trade half the farm for some starting pitching.

 

Well, if it has to be the choice I'd prefer Jackson and the prospects they get for Garza than just resigning Garza. But that doesn't have to be the choice. There's no reason they can't keep both, if they want to.

 

that's my preference as well. because they are going to suck again in 2014 with a rotation of samardzija, wood and ?, ?, ?.

[SABR Gamer]

To me, Jackson likely comes in around half the price of Garza on an extension. I'd rather have Jackson and the package of prospects you can get for Garza(assuming he's healthy) and the extra flexibility to go get an actual ace as well.

 

and who is that "actual ace" that you're going to get/sign?

 

David Price.

[Little Slide Rooter]

To me, Jackson likely comes in around half the price of Garza on an extension. I'd rather have Jackson and the package of prospects you can get for Garza(assuming he's healthy) and the extra flexibility to go get an actual ace as well.

 

and who is that "actual ace" that you're going to get/sign?

 

David Price.

 

Judging by what they got for a year and an option of 30 year old James Shields, I can't even begin to think about the, er, price.

[SABR Gamer]

To me, Jackson likely comes in around half the price of Garza on an extension. I'd rather have Jackson and the package of prospects you can get for Garza(assuming he's healthy) and the extra flexibility to go get an actual ace as well.

 

and who is that "actual ace" that you're going to get/sign?

 

David Price.

 

Judging by what they got for a year and an option of 30 year old James Shields, I can't even begin to think about the, er, price.

 

Theo Epstein > Dayton Moore

[Banedon]

http://i.qkme.me/3s985g.jpg