Random Cubs Musings

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA.

There's around 20 pitchers total in baseball that you can feel confident will start 20+ with an era around 3.00.

 

And Shark isn't even one of them

 

Define "around"

[Guest]

OK, so I've deliberately looked into this as far as I have the resources to and this is the skinny:

 

From everything being discussed within the industry, Rickett's is 100% finanically solid and any claim to the contrary is false. Most believe the chatter about finanical issues stems from a combination of the MLB report a couple years ago about the Cubs being out of compliance with MLB debt law and the lack of spending on the MLB roster that all seem to assume will continue this offseason as well. What was continually pointed out to me is that that Ricketts total budget is higher than any Tribune budget put into place. There are millions upon millions being spent in places that were neglected by former ownership and while the Ricketts did expect to have more money available to spend on the MLB roster by this point, it isn't so far off that anyone should be alarmed. Once the organization is (finally) caught up to the rest of the big boys as far as MiLB infrastructure, facilities throughout (from training to MiLB ballparks, medical/rehab facilities, Dominican facility, etc.) more and more will be injected into the MLB roster- it just so happens that timeline lines up with completion of the renovations at Wrigley and the new cable deal. I've been told, point blank, if there was a player that Theo and crew absolutely wanted, they would have the funds to complete just about any transaction- unfortunately there doesn't appear to be that player available right now...

 

 

FWIW

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Horsepoop he's spending more money than the Tribune did.

[davell]

Horsepoop he's spending more money than the Tribune did.

And if he was, with what's being said about ownership, he'd be [expletive] stupid not to be bringing up what it IS being spent on. #PoorStupidTomRicketts

[WrigleyField 22]

Horsepoop he's spending more money than the Tribune did.

Debt servicing could technically be considered part of the budget and push the total higher. While I'm not sure that still would make the total expenditures higher, since revenue also is down, maybe as a ratio it's higher. None of us have ever seen a MLB budget from top to bottom and few of us would even be equipped to understand it fully, so I don't think you can really say horsepoop in response.

[Guest]

I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA.

There's around 20 pitchers total in baseball that you can feel confident will start 20+ with an era around 3.00.

 

And Shark isn't even one of them

 

Define "around"

>3.30. I'll stand by my statement.

[MSG T]

I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA.

There's around 20 pitchers total in baseball that you can feel confident will start 20+ with an era around 3.00.

 

And Shark isn't even one of them

 

Define "around"

>3.30. I'll stand by my statement.

 

 

7 meet your first post, 15 meet your second.

 

 

Travis Wood was one of the second (200 IP, 3.11 ERA).

[SouthSideRyan]

Once the organization is (finally) caught up to the rest of the big boys as far as MiLB infrastructure, facilities throughout (from training to MiLB ballparks, medical/rehab facilities, Dominican facility, etc.) more and more will be injected into the MLB roster- it just so happens that timeline lines up with completion of the renovations at Wrigley and the new cable deal.

 

It just so happens that there's no need to spend money until 2019 guys, don't worry about it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Horsepoop he's spending more money than the Tribune did.

Debt servicing could technically be considered part of the budget and push the total higher. While I'm not sure that still would make the total expenditures higher, since revenue also is down, maybe as a ratio it's higher. None of us have ever seen a MLB budget from top to bottom and few of us would even be equipped to understand it fully, so I don't think you can really say horsepoop in response.

 

"All these documents are yours. The people's property, you pay for it! But because the Ricketts considers you children who might be too disturbed or distressed to face this reality, or because you might possibly lynch those involved, you cannot see these documents for another seventy-five years. I'm in my early forties, so I'll have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, but I'm already telling my eight-year-old son to keep himself physically fit, so that one glorious September morning, in the year 2038, he can walk into the Triangle Building across from Wrigley, and find out what the Ricketts and Sam Zell knew! They might even push it back then, hell it may become a generational affair, with questions passed down from father to son, mother to daughter, but someday, somewhere, somebody will find out the damn truth."

[Guest]

There's around 20 pitchers total in baseball that you can feel confident will start 20+ with an era around 3.00.

 

And Shark isn't even one of them

 

Define "around"

>3.30. I'll stand by my statement.

 

 

7 meet your first post, 15 meet your second.

 

 

Travis Wood was one of the second (200 IP, 3.11 ERA).

lol - now how many guys did it the past couple years in a row to where you can have "confidence" they'll do it again in 2014?

 

Though, technically, I'll point out that that the vast majority of pitchers meet the second criteria.

[jumbo]

Horsepoop he's spending more money than the Tribune did.

Debt servicing could technically be considered part of the budget and push the total higher. While I'm not sure that still would make the total expenditures higher, since revenue also is down, maybe as a ratio it's higher. None of us have ever seen a MLB budget from top to bottom and few of us would even be equipped to understand it fully, so I don't think you can really say horsepoop in response.

 

"All these documents are yours. The people's property, you pay for it! But because the Ricketts considers you children who might be too disturbed or distressed to face this reality, or because you might possibly lynch those involved, you cannot see these documents for another seventy-five years. I'm in my early forties, so I'll have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, but I'm already telling my eight-year-old son to keep himself physically fit, so that one glorious September morning, in the year 2038, he can walk into the Triangle Building across from Wrigley, and find out what the Ricketts and Sam Zell knew! They might even push it back then, hell it may become a generational affair, with questions passed down from father to son, mother to daughter, but someday, somewhere, somebody will find out the damn truth."

 

Awesome

[Guest]

14 with an era of 3, 30 with @3.30, Including David Price. I stand by my post. It's cool if you think that's asking too much, I don't think they should trade him and try to work out a reasonable deal (5 years AAV around 12 to 15mil). If they can't I guess they should trade him, but I'd wait until the deadline.

[Clem Fandango]

14 with an era of 3, 30 with @3.30, Including David Price. I stand by my post. It's cool if you think that's asking too much, I don't think they should trade him and try to work out a reasonable deal (5 years AAV around 12 to 15mil). If they can't I guess they should trade him, but I'd wait until the deadline.

 

I agree that Shark should be considered for an extension, but from all accounts it seems like he's not interested in signing an extension. I seem to recall the FO saying signing Samardzija to an extension this past offseason was a priority, but Samardzija wasn't interested. If that's the case, and he'd rather test free agency, then trading him while you can get the max return for him possible is not a bad idea.

[Tryptamine]

14 with an era of 3, 30 with @3.30, Including David Price. I stand by my post. It's cool if you think that's asking too much, I don't think they should trade him and try to work out a reasonable deal (5 years AAV around 12 to 15mil). If they can't I guess they should trade him, but I'd wait until the deadline.

 

I agree that Shark should be considered for an extension, but from all accounts it seems like he's not interested in signing an extension. I seem to recall the FO saying signing Samardzija to an extension this past offseason was a priority, but Samardzija wasn't interested. If that's the case, and he'd rather test free agency, then trading him while you can get the max return for him possible is not a bad idea.

 

My understanding was that he wanted too many years and wouldn't back off of a NTC.

[Clem Fandango]

14 with an era of 3, 30 with @3.30, Including David Price. I stand by my post. It's cool if you think that's asking too much, I don't think they should trade him and try to work out a reasonable deal (5 years AAV around 12 to 15mil). If they can't I guess they should trade him, but I'd wait until the deadline.

 

I agree that Shark should be considered for an extension, but from all accounts it seems like he's not interested in signing an extension. I seem to recall the FO saying signing Samardzija to an extension this past offseason was a priority, but Samardzija wasn't interested. If that's the case, and he'd rather test free agency, then trading him while you can get the max return for him possible is not a bad idea.

 

My understanding was that he wanted too many years and wouldn't back off of a NTC.

 

That's possible, I wasn't too familiar with the details, just that they couldn't agree and as a result left his future with the club up in the air.

[SouthSideRyan]

14 with an era of 3, 30 with @3.30, Including David Price. I stand by my post. It's cool if you think that's asking too much, I don't think they should trade him and try to work out a reasonable deal (5 years AAV around 12 to 15mil). If they can't I guess they should trade him, but I'd wait until the deadline.

 

In spite of the fact that he has zero margin for error on his pitches?

[Guest]

14 with an era of 3, 30 with @3.30, Including David Price. I stand by my post. It's cool if you think that's asking too much, I don't think they should trade him and try to work out a reasonable deal (5 years AAV around 12 to 15mil). If they can't I guess they should trade him, but I'd wait until the deadline.

 

In spite of the fact that he has zero margin for error on his pitches?

Yes. The Cubs have no margin of error either. If they trade him for a minor leaguer it's a sign that they are punting once again.

[Guest]

Samardzija is one of the top 25 or so starters in MLB but a reasonable deal for him is 5/60? Okay.

[Guest]

Samardzija is one of the top 25 or so starters in MLB but a reasonable deal for him is 5/60? Okay.

 

This seems hyperbole. Show your work, please.

[davell]

Samardzija is one of the top 25 or so starters in MLB but a reasonable deal for him is 5/60? Okay.

With 2 arb years left, including one where he's projected to make around 5 mill. He pitches good in 2014? Maybe 10 for his last arb year? It 'd leave 3/45 in FA years.

 

That seems exactly like what the Cubs would try to do, except I figure they'd want even more of a discount on his FA years.....

[Guest]

Samardzija is one of the top 25 or so starters in MLB but a reasonable deal for him is 5/60? Okay.

 

This seems hyperbole. Show your work, please.

 

That's CubinNY's implicit claim.

[Guest]

Samardzija is one of the top 25 or so starters in MLB but a reasonable deal for him is 5/60? Okay.

 

This seems hyperbole. Show your work, please.

 

That's CubinNY's implicit claim.

 

Oh, jeez. NO IDEA why I missed that.

[Guest]

Samardzija is one of the top 25 or so starters in MLB but a reasonable deal for him is 5/60? Okay.

 

This seems hyperbole. Show your work, please.

 

That's CubinNY's implicit claim.

No it's not. I never said any such thing or implied it. I know it's the cool thing to do though.

 

The Cubs can't afford to trade him for minor league players if they want to try and compete next year and he's the closest thing they have to a #1 pitcher. From now on I'll be intentionally explicit so as not to be intentionally misconstrued even though it's likely no matter what.

[Guest]

Your original post is "I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA." The logical thing to assume here is that you think Shark fits that criteria, or maybe more, because the alternative is that you "don't think it's a good sign" unless they trade Shark for a pitcher that's already better than he is. You then went on to further crystallize your criteria for "around a 3.00 ERA" and clearly stated what you thought a "reasonable" deal was for him, so I'm not really sure where there's room for misinterpretation here.

[Guest]

Your original post is "I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA." The logical thing to assume here is that you think Shark fits that criteria, or maybe more, because the alternative is that you "don't think it's a good sign" unless they trade Shark for a pitcher that's already better than he is. You then went on to further crystallize your criteria for "around a 3.00 ERA" and clearly stated what you thought a "reasonable" deal was for him, so I'm not really sure where there's room for misinterpretation here.

There are myriad ways and reasons he can be traded for "a player who is already better than he is". But to be crystal clear, in my opinion the Cubs are in no position to trade him for minor leaguers. If they trade him the need to get better by the trade. It is not a good sign for 2014 if they trade him and don't get better.