2014 Roster Discussion

[SouthSideRyan]

I've got 2014 payroll at ~74M with arb estimates + 500K per pre-arb guy. Any qualms with that?

 

I guess that oddly gives me some hope, because they couldn't even bluff that they're going to try to sign anybody of worth if they have all of 1-10M to spend.

[Sammy Sofa]

My thing is this: why even come out there and make these statements if they're going to just turn around and sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury? What's accomplished?

[SouthSideRyan]

My thing is this: why even come out there and make these statements if they're going to just turn around and sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury? What's accomplished?

 

Sets an artificial ceiling to prevent them from bidding against themselves maybe?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I've got 2014 payroll at ~74M with arb estimates + 500K per pre-arb guy. Any qualms with that?

 

I guess that oddly gives me some hope, because they couldn't even bluff that they're going to try to sign anybody of worth if they have all of 1-10M to spend.

 

Sure they could. Didn't they make a big show of meeting with Pujols' agent and leaking rumors of a 5/$150 offer?

[Guest]

My thing is this: why even come out there and make these statements if they're going to just turn around and sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury? What's accomplished?

 

To set expectations that they aren't going to go on a spending binge, even if we get news about renovations being finalized, new WGN deal, etc?

 

There's also the bit that we're reading into pretty general statements about free agency he's making to the media, but I don't really care to debate platitudes v. hidden meanings again.

[Sammy Sofa]

My thing is this: why even come out there and make these statements if they're going to just turn around and sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury? What's accomplished?

 

To set expectations that they aren't going to go on a spending binge, even if we get news about renovations being finalized, new WGN deal, etc?

 

There's also the bit that we're reading into pretty general statements about free agency he's making to the media, but I don't really care to debate platitudes v. hidden meanings again.

 

Not addressing the issue or being much more vague or "diplomatic" also helps temper expectations, too. Just seems like there's a better path to do that than flat-out singling a specific player/signing and all but saying, "yeah, we won't be doing THAT again any time soon."

[Sammy Sofa]

My thing is this: why even come out there and make these statements if they're going to just turn around and sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury? What's accomplished?

 

Sets an artificial ceiling to prevent them from bidding against themselves maybe?

 

Something tells me that with all the money out there nobody gives a [expletive] if the Cubs are going to dog-paddle around in the pool or not.

[SouthSideRyan]

http://i.imgur.com/xeGvg59.gif

[Sammy Sofa]

Perfect.

[Guest]

Arguello talking CarGo again: http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2013/09/cubs-notes-carlos-gonzalez-and-other-offseason-chatter-kevin-gregg-gets-a-reprieve/

 

I'm hearing that the Carlos Gonzalez rumor has some legs and that one player the Rockies are interested in is Jake Arrieta. That makes sense from their standpoint as he is young and cost-controlled, though I don't know how keen the Cubs are to that idea. Does it make sense for the Cubs who lack top level arms and are said to be concerned about some budget constraints? It's a tough question to answer. Gonzalez is an established star and should produce well even outside of Wrigley. He fills two needs at once -- OBP and LH power, along with having the kind of athleticism and defensive skills the team prefers. It's a pretty good fit but only at the right cost -- both in terms of players/prospects and in financial terms.

 

Also hearing that Nate Schierholtz is a trade candidate, especially if the Cubs do acquire CarGo. The Cubs also have Ryan Sweeney and Bryan Bogusevic from the left side and both have impressed when given the opportunity this season.

 

Cargo turns 28 in about 3 weeks, and he's signed through 2017, at 10 mil in 2014, then 16, 17, and 20 million the following years. Assuming that interest in Arrieta is legitimate, what do you think a deal for CarGo looks like in player cost? Arrieta + Lake?

 

Also, on the topic of CarGo's performance translating outside of Colorado, his career OPS is .887, .920 as a Rockie. His career OPS in NL Central stadiums is .940, in 300 plate appearances.

[Guest]

I love CarGo and if he actually came that cheaply I'd uh...wow.

[davell]

I can't imagine getting CarGo for Lake and Arrieta. His contract is decent, I honestly can't imagine getting him without an Almora being in it as well. Surely they'd get at least one top flight talent back, right?

[imb]

they're not trading cargo for a throw in from the scott feldman trade and junior lake. Soler or Almora would have to go and the rockies would for sure demand two of the top 4

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Would not give up 2 of the top 4 for CarGo.

[Boris]

If you can do it for Almora and then go backwards in prospect prize rankings, I would.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

As much as I love Almora, I would do it with him as the centerpiece. Maybe Almora, Johnson, and Candelario.

 

Although I'd rather have Soler as the centerpiece.

[Boris]

Why Soler? His power alone should make him much more valuable. We are going to want his thump.

[Cubswin11]

As much as I love Almora, I would do it with him as the centerpiece. Maybe Almora, Johnson, and Candelario.

 

Although I'd rather have Soler as the centerpiece.

I was thinking something along the lines of that trade as well. I was thinking Almora, Jeimer, and Arrieta. I think I'd lean slightly to give up Almora over Soler. The RH power that Soler will/could provide is something I want in a future lineup of ours.

[Guest]

they're not trading cargo for a throw in from the scott feldman trade and junior lake. Soler or Almora would have to go and the rockies would for sure demand two of the top 4

 

If the Rockies are specifically interested in Arrieta, my guess is that they value him a bit more than "the throw in for Scott Feldman". Lake will be a similar situation, as you can make a reasonable argument for everything from "Lake is barely a major leaguer" to "Lake is a cost-controlled 3 win center fielder". I also wasn't sure if the Rockies would be interested in guys below AA as headliners, and Baez isn't getting traded for CarGo.

 

As for CarGo, the last 4 years he's been a 4 to 4.5 win player, and he's owed 4/63 the next 4 years, so he's very close to market value. That's obviously quite valuable, but this isn't a Stanton situation either where the Rockies can name their prospect price and have it met.

[imb]

I dont care how they value Arrieta or what they think about Lake, they aren't trading an all star OF for a guy with two good months and a 1.4 career whip pitcher. We're going to have to bleed a little.

[Guest]

If you think Lake is a 3 win CF and Arrieta a league average SP with stuff for more, then you are bleeding quite a bit already, that's my point. They certainly may not agree and no one should say "well if we have to give up more than Lake and Arrieta that's outrageous", but the Rockies are going to want value that's not multiple years away. Since the odds of Baez being in that deal are slim, that means that players like Arrieta, Lake, Wood, etc. would likely be a significant part of a deal.

[imb]

I just don't think we're a match unless A.) they want at least one of our top 4 guys and B.) we're willing to give to give up at least one. We can throw all the league average SPs and toolsy outfielders at them that we can find, but in the long run five 1-win players don't equal one 5-win player. I know that's not what you were saying exactly, but you know what i mean.

[sneakypower]

you can make a reasonable argument for [...] "Lake is barely a major leaguer"

HOGWASH

[davell]

Yeah, there's a shortage of hitting available, the price will and should be steep. Outside of Javy and Bryant, I'd be willing to step up pretty damn high to get him. I'd actually take him over Stanton, once I weigh the likely prospect cost differential and Stanton's injury history versus CarGo's home/road splits.

[Beer Kaese]

Now obviously they could have Castro and/or Rizzo rebound and actually be the players they need them to be. Baez could burst out of the gate and show up in June next year and give the team a shot in the arm. Lake could continue to be a useful player and maybe we're seeing the Castillo we were hoping for. The farm continues to develop and trades start to happen and things click...it's not like I'm expecting them to fail or hoping that they do; I'm just very wary about things since they don't really have the spending option right now and Castro and Rizzo (and to a lesser degree, Shark) really fell on their faces. There's basically just one front right now: internal development, and it basically has to pay off for things to turn around quickly. I really hope it does, because the other front is a mess because of how money is tied up and how [expletive] the market is. It's just not an ideal position to be in, and certainly not what any of us were expecting.

 

This is playing out very much the way I expected. I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team and then they'd tread water for a season. Next season, I do not expect the team to be big sellers and I see no reason why they would have another big drop off after the trading deadline. The important thing to keep in mind is that the good things that happen will come from cheap young players under team control. Once a few cheap young players breakout, other prospects become expendable. Some prospects become players on the 25 man roster while others are only working capital used to acquire players that fill specific needs which cannot be found in free agency or in the farm system.