DeJesus traded to Nats for PTBNL

[XZero771679666304]

NOBODY IS SAYING DAVID DEJSUS IS SINGLEHANDEDLY GOING TO MAKE THE TEAM GOOD.

 

No, no one is. But some people are acting like it matters, and I think there's a good case that it won't make a lick of difference.

 

I just don't see any compelling reason not to make the deal, even if it is just to save some pennies.

[The-Kris-Bryant]

i'd rather they win 92 games next year, personally.

Well dejesus isnt a 12 win player. I doubt the FO is looking at 2014 as a year where they expect to win over 85 or so games. They're probably looking at 2014 as a nice step to average before hoping to take the leap into contention in 2015.

 

That's looking like it could be a pretty huge leap.

Well by 2015 there's a chance either Baez or Bryant could help the offense and Rizzo and Castro will get their crap together. Add one decent FA signing this offseason and another the next, and it's possible. I think 2016 is the year they expect to be a 90 win team, with an outside chance in 2015

[Sammy Sofa]

NOBODY IS SAYING DAVID DEJSUS IS SINGLEHANDEDLY GOING TO MAKE THE TEAM GOOD.

 

No, no one is. But some people are acting like it matters, and I think there's a good case that it won't make a lick of difference.

 

I just don't see any compelling reason not to make the deal, even if it is just to save some pennies.

 

I don't think anyone is acting like it's anything except indicative of larger issues.

[XZero771679666304]

god it's hysterical watching people [expletive] themselves over a 70-win team trading a 2-win player. HEAVEN FORBID

 

It's because it feeds the fear that the payroll is going to keep plummeting. I think that is possible, but I don't think it is necessarily an indicator of that. They could be clearing space to sign a guy like Choo. Even if they replace him with Sweeney, it's pretty much a lateral move and saves some money.

 

In summation: it doesn't really matter.

[XZero771679666304]

NOBODY IS SAYING DAVID DEJSUS IS SINGLEHANDEDLY GOING TO MAKE THE TEAM GOOD.

 

No, no one is. But some people are acting like it matters, and I think there's a good case that it won't make a lick of difference.

 

I just don't see any compelling reason not to make the deal, even if it is just to save some pennies.

 

I don't think anyone is acting like it's anything except indicative of larger issues.

 

Indicative of potential issues, I agree.

[imb]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

[The-Kris-Bryant]

If you're not going to compete why expand the payroll just to not compete? Sign value guys we can trade for prospects like Hairston, but there's no need to spend money just to spend it. That was my biggest gripe about Jackson. We might have 1 year of him while the cubs are good. Perhaps we can dump him for something nice had he not sucked, but I always though he was crap.

[Guest]

NOBODY IS SAYING DAVID DEJSUS IS SINGLEHANDEDLY GOING TO MAKE THE TEAM GOOD.

 

No, no one is. But some people are acting like it matters, and I think there's a good case that it won't make a lick of difference.

 

I just don't see any compelling reason not to make the deal, even if it is just to save some pennies.

It's the potential implications that matter to me. I guess trading him saves money, but for what purpose? To pay for the blunder of going over the budget, ok fine, but that is worrisome. To save money to go after better talent in the market? Ok, that's great. But it does bother me if this was done simply as a cost saving move. I hope it wasn't.

[SouthSideRyan]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

 

Are you replying to a future BacktoBanks post? Nobody's saying ugh Hoyer you idiot! they're saying Ricketts you cheap [expletive].

[Sammy Sofa]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

 

Sure, and it could very well turn out to be something like that and it ends up they want the money to go after someone like Choo or Ellsbury in addition to whatever else and I'll be eating a plate of crow and I'd be totally fine with that. The concern is that it's NOT something like that and they really are severely limited with the big league budget and they're looking to trim wherever possible and they really are riding this whole "prospects or bust" thing out until the TV stuff and the advertising and renovations and the debt and so on can get straightened out.

[Sammy Sofa]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

 

Are you replying to a future BacktoBanks post? Nobody's saying ugh Hoyer you idiot! they're saying Ricketts you cheap [expletive].

 

Right, I don't have any kind of problem with the move itself; I'm just tired of how it seems more and more like the Ricketts are either unwilling or unable to spend like we all really, really want a team like this to be able to. There's obviously a lot of reasons why that would unfortunately be the case, but the warning signs are there and it's not something anyone should be OK with.

[SouthSideRyan]

If you're not going to compete why expand the payroll just to not compete? Sign value guys we can trade for prospects like Hairston, but there's no need to spend money just to spend it. That was my biggest gripe about Jackson. We might have 1 year of him while the cubs are good. Perhaps we can dump him for something nice had he not sucked, but I always though he was crap.

 

Hopefully we non-tender Schierholtz if we can't find a taker for him this offseason.

[Sammy Sofa]

And hey, if I wanted to get REALLY paranoid I'd say part of it was the Theo felt burned by the Jackson signing a la the signings at the end in Boston there and it's just pushing the FO away from signing anyone that isn't a reclamation project or platoon guy or whatever. But that's just paranoia.

[Guest]

Personally, I'd be surprised if Lake has an everyday spot on opening day. Sweeney in LF or CF, Schierholtz in RF, and someone from the Granderson/Ellsbury/Choo/Cruz group in LF or CF would be my guess. Lake could be the 4th outfielder and platoon partner for one of those spots. Would need another righty outfielder on the bench as well (Vitters?).

 

I still am highly doubtful that this FO will make that big veteran "top-tier free agent" splash this off-season. After 2014, with more and more prospects, particularly arms,in the upper levels? I can see that, but it just feels like this is one-year early to make that big splash, based on what the FO has said and done. Granted, maybe they are trying to get everyone to think that way for a specific purpose, but with so many teams flush with money, I'm taking them at face-value for now.

 

While I think the idea of intentionally waiting to be "ready" to add quality players to the major league roster is ridiculous, as it is, the notion of waiting because it's ONE YEAR early is beyond absurd.

[WrigleyField 22]

It'd all be okay when Giancarlo Stanton is patrolling LF.

[Guest]

*SIIIIIGH*

 

Pinchin' pennies.

You would rather have had us win 77 games next year instead of 74 thereby picking 12th instead of a protected top 10 pick in 2015, and not signing two of those international prospects? I'm all for redistributing cash to the farm system when we know we won't compete.

 

lol they better [expletive] not be worrying about having a protected pick next year.

[UMFan83]

Theo's first signing as GM

[treebird]

i kind of think the international signing spree was a mistake if the result is that money has to come directly back out of the major league payroll. those guys have such a low rate of return and hell, even if things go amazingly well we'll see one of those guys in, what, 2019? signings like that should be a nice bonus, not something done at the expense of the real team.

[WrigleyField 22]

i kind of think the international signing spree was a mistake if the result is that money has to come directly back out of the major league payroll. those guys have such a low rate of return and hell, even if things go amazingly well we'll see one of those guys in, what, 2019? signings like that should be a nice bonus, not something done at the expense of the real team.

I don't know, I find it pretty unlikely they make this move unless they felt like they weren't picking up his option already. Right or wrong, they're probably moving on, hopefully they have a legitimate replacement next spring.

 

Just to clarify, there was one tweet that the savings was $2.5m and then one of our own posters said that about covered the international penalty. Some posters are now running with that correlation.

 

And apparently that 2.5m is 1m in salary and 1.5m in buyout, so to reach a 2.5M figure you're saying he was not being brought back, so it's more about saving yourself the 1.5m expense of cutting a player than anything.

Edited August 19, 2013 by WrigleyField 22

[Andy]

i kind of think the international signing spree was a mistake if the result is that money has to come directly back out of the major league payroll. those guys have such a low rate of return and hell, even if things go amazingly well we'll see one of those guys in, what, 2019? signings like that should be a nice bonus, not something done at the expense of the real team.

I'm choosing to believe that this move had nothing to do with the IFA signings, because the alternative would be really, really stupid.

[The-Kris-Bryant]

i kind of think the international signing spree was a mistake if the result is that money has to come directly back out of the major league payroll. those guys have such a low rate of return and hell, even if things go amazingly well we'll see one of those guys in, what, 2019? signings like that should be a nice bonus, not something done at the expense of the real team.

Well would you rather have 70 wins this year instead of 69 wins, keeping Dejesus and not have those lottery pick type IFA's in 7 years. I mean it's not affecting the present team. I really think they wanted to trade Dejesus in July and the injury messed that plan up.

[Guest]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

 

or it could just be hey the payroll is going to plummet i hate our owners

 

 

not saying i feel that extremely about it, but i definitely understand why people aren't happy about this big market team with a hugely enthusiastic following cutting the budget like this.

[Sammy Sofa]

i kind of think the international signing spree was a mistake if the result is that money has to come directly back out of the major league payroll. those guys have such a low rate of return and hell, even if things go amazingly well we'll see one of those guys in, what, 2019? signings like that should be a nice bonus, not something done at the expense of the real team.

Well would you rather have 70 wins this year instead of 69 wins, keeping Dejesus and not have those lottery pick type IFA's in 7 years. I mean it's not affecting the present team. I really think they wanted to trade Dejesus in July and the injury messed that plan up.

 

How are you still so hung up on the idea that you think people are really bothered by the specific idea of trading DeJesus? People are bothered by potential bigger issues, not how good or bad he was going to be for the Cubs next year.

[Guest]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

 

Are you replying to a future BacktoBanks post? Nobody's saying ugh Hoyer you idiot! they're saying Ricketts you cheap [expletive].

 

At what point does it become incredibly tedious to to have pages of that rhetoric every time a transaction is made or discussed?

[Sammy Sofa]

well it should be hey the payroll is going to plummet thank god our front office is being proactive about the situation they're in

 

Are you replying to a future BacktoBanks post? Nobody's saying ugh Hoyer you idiot! they're saying Ricketts you cheap [expletive].

 

At what point does it become incredibly tedious to to have pages of that rhetoric every time a transaction is made or discussed?

 

So tell people on the other side to not reply. People are going to react to things in different ways, and it's not always a call for discussion or debate; sometimes it's just a general response. If people were so sick of those arguments then why would they keep making them?