Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest
Guests
Posted
That was fun. The Cubs should do that again tomorrow.
Old-Timey Member
Posted
Not really interested in extending a pitcher with two years of control left.

Just as good or better of a chance he prices himself into someone giving him a 6-7 year deal on FA market at max prices as him regressing.

Posted
Not really interested in extending a pitcher with two years of control left.

Just as good or better of a chance he prices himself into someone giving him a 6-7 year deal on FA market at max prices as him regressing.

 

We can afford to risk it and pay him that if it comes to it.

Guest
Guests
Posted
Samardzija's splitter has to be amongst the five best pitches in baseball.
Old-Timey Member
Posted
Not really interested in extending a pitcher with two years of control left.

Just as good or better of a chance he prices himself into someone giving him a 6-7 year deal on FA market at max prices as him regressing.

 

We can afford to risk it and pay him that if it comes to it.

 

I think your doom boner has you scared to death of pitching. Sometimes, its still smart to try to lock one up. I'd rather give Shark 5/60 with a 18 mill option or two right now, than possibly have to pay him 6/120 or so in 2 years.

 

That said, I think its a moot conversation, as I think if Shark wanted an early extension, he probably would have signed one already.

Posted
Not really interested in extending a pitcher with two years of control left.

Just as good or better of a chance he prices himself into someone giving him a 6-7 year deal on FA market at max prices as him regressing.

 

We can afford to risk it and pay him that if it comes to it.

So you would rather underpay a player during his prime and then overpay to keep him through his age 36 or 37 years, than pay him more for those last two arb years in his prime and have that contract end after his age 34 or 35 years?

 

Are you concerned with him getting injured or regressing before he turns 31 and saving the Cubs being on the hook 3 more years? Financially, it makes a lot more sense value wise to extend him now. During his prime, he is a lot less likely to sustain a major injury or regress. I would rather bet on than not happening in the next two seasons than have to compete with the rest of the market to pay him thru age 36 or 37 when he is more apt to get injured and almost certain to regress.

 

For Samardzija, he gets more money sooner and eliminates any possibility of not reaching that big payday. It makes sense for both sides assuming they can reach an agreement on numbers.

Posted
I would rather wait to make the decision on whether or not to extend a high-risk asset until we have the most information possible, even if it means risking paying more for it or being priced out of extending it at all.
Posted
I would rather wait to make the decision on whether or not to extend a high-risk asset until we have the most information possible, even if it means risking paying more for it or being priced out of extending it at all.

What kind of information are you referring to? Health? If he's for real at the major league level? The latter is pretty much answered for me...

Posted
I would rather wait to make the decision on whether or not to extend a high-risk asset until we have the most information possible, even if it means risking paying more for it or being priced out of extending it at all.

What kind of information are you referring to? Health? If he's for real at the major league level? The latter is pretty much answered for me...

 

Health and effectiveness. He's a starting pitcher. They get hurt or wear out their arms to ineffectiveness at a fairly high rate. I see no reason to lock ourselves into his age 31-3? seasons two and a half years before they even begin.

Posted
I would rather wait to make the decision on whether or not to extend a high-risk asset until we have the most information possible, even if it means risking paying more for it or being priced out of extending it at all.

What kind of information are you referring to? Health? If he's for real at the major league level? The latter is pretty much answered for me...

 

Health and effectiveness. He's a starting pitcher. They get hurt or wear out their arms to ineffectiveness at a fairly high rate. I see no reason to lock ourselves into his age 31-3? seasons two and a half years before they even begin.

 

Sooner or later there becomes a value in the subjective merit of "sending a message" that you're trying to win/compete/whatever.

 

If you can lock up potentially elite pitching at sub-elite costs, you have to try.

Guest
Guests
Posted
I would rather wait to make the decision on whether or not to extend a high-risk asset until we have the most information possible, even if it means risking paying more for it or being priced out of extending it at all.

What kind of information are you referring to? Health? If he's for real at the major league level? The latter is pretty much answered for me...

 

Health and effectiveness. He's a starting pitcher. They get hurt or wear out their arms to ineffectiveness at a fairly high rate. I see no reason to lock ourselves into his age 31-3? seasons two and a half years before they even begin.

 

My tolerance for taking on Samardzija's age seasons 31-33 now is a lot greater than my tolerance to letting him go in two years which is a lot greater than my tolerance for giving him 5-7 years of even greater money at age 31.

Posted
I would rather wait to make the decision on whether or not to extend a high-risk asset until we have the most information possible, even if it means risking paying more for it or being priced out of extending it at all.

What kind of information are you referring to? Health? If he's for real at the major league level? The latter is pretty much answered for me...

 

Health and effectiveness. He's a starting pitcher. They get hurt or wear out their arms to ineffectiveness at a fairly high rate. I see no reason to lock ourselves into his age 31-3? seasons two and a half years before they even begin.

 

My tolerance for taking on Samardzija's age seasons 31-33 now is a lot greater than my tolerance to letting him go in two years which is a lot greater than my tolerance for giving him 5-7 years of even greater money at age 31.

I'm with ya, TT. It makes too much sense for the Cubs to try to extend him. And frankly, it makes a lot of sense for Samardzija to do it, too. Castro, Rizzo and their agents aren't dumb. There's a reason these deals get made. It's smart for both parties.

 

Kyle's right in that the Cubs, with their current payroll, can afford to pay more for Shark once he gets to FA, but the Cubs current payroll situation won't be their future situation if all goes well. It still pays to be smart with your resources.

Posted
WOOHOO! I hope Hawk continues to cry for a while.

Hawk is awesome to listen to when the Sox are losing

 

But perhaps the most beautiful sound in all of sports is the abrubt silence that falls upon Hawk when someone hits a walk off vs. The Sox mid sentence.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...