Offseason Rumors

[Guest]

Apparently it's not that big a jump:

 

@CubsDen: More like $15M in new players, possibly less.

[Sammy Sofa]

Apparently it's not that big a jump:

 

@CubsDen: More like $15M in new players, possibly less.

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/4561699/john-cleese-is-disappointed-in-you-o.gif

[Guest]

Apparently it's not that big a jump:

 

@CubsDen: More like $15M in new players, possibly less.

 

I feel like his math on the existing commitments (and arb guesses) has to be off. I remember figuring it a month or two ago and there should have been close to that much left without a payroll jump, right?

 

Hopefully his info (a $25-30M jump over last year) is good and his math is just crappy.

[Guest]

Right now we have players under control that basically make a full roster:

 

Castillo/Rizzo/Barney/Castro/Valbuena/Sweeney/Lake/Schierholtz

Samardzija/Wood/Jackson/Arrieta/Villanueva

 

That team costs right about 70 million. Time to have some fun filling out the rest of the roster:

 

- Sign Ellsbury - Fangraphs' estimate is 6/112, let's say 6/120 with the chance we try to get away with something like 5/110.

- Sign Ubaldo - We went over his Fangraphs estimate being a bit light, so let's be conservative and say he gets 4/60 or 5/75.

- Trade Lake & Barney for Porcello

- Sign Franklin Gutierrez - He seems like a wild card, so I'll just guess 5M AAV?

 

Which gives you a team like:

 

Ellsbury

Castro

Rizzo

Castillo

Sweeney/Gutierrez

Schierholtz/Sweeney

Valbuena

Olt/Watkins

 

Shark/Ubaldo/Wood/Jackson/Porcello

 

Strop/Parker/Russell/Arrieta/Villanueva/Your favorite 2 remaining RP

 

That team is roughly 115 million, which pretty comfortably fits into Arguello's range even if the estimates are light.

[Guest]

http://mrphilroth.com/mlbpayrolls/

 

Relevant to the current discussion. Looks like commitments for next year are:

 

Castro $5M

Rizzo $1M

Jackson $13M

Fuji $5M

Soriano $13M

Villanueva $5M

Total: $42M

 

I think Scott Hairston is due $500k of our money

 

Arb Guys (with some guesses):

Samardzija 3.5M (2.64 in 13)

Schierholtz 3.5M (2.25 in 13)

Russell 1.5M (1.075 in 13)

Valbuena 1.5M (930k in 13)

Barney 1.5M (500k in 13)

Wood 1.5M (500k in 13)

 

Then there's like $1.7M in Soler money

 

That puts us at $57.2M. Fill out the rest of the roster with minimum guys and you're at around $70.5M

 

That's what I figured back in August.

 

Add a million that goes to Concepcion I guess and add Sweeney's number and that still is well short of how much Arguello says is committed. What am I missing?

[Guest]

Apparently it's not that big a jump:

 

@CubsDen: More like $15M in new players, possibly less.

 

I feel like his math on the existing commitments (and arb guesses) has to be off. I remember figuring it a month or two ago and there should have been close to that much left without a payroll jump, right?

 

Hopefully his info (a $25-30M jump over last year) is good and his math is just crappy.

 

Yeah, I tried explaining to him on twitter his math was wrong and it didn't seem like he was following. He's adding the incremental salaries from last year and ignoring that they don't owe Marmol, Garza, DeJesus, Baker, Hairston and Soriano(partial) ~36 million that they did on Opening Day 2013.

[Guest]

Ellsbury and Choo/Cano plz.

I *really* want them to go after Cano. He's a very good player, it's a position of need, he's Latino, and by all accounts a good leader. I know he's likely not going to earn all he makes but good teams do this sort of thing.

 

That said, it's not likely with Baez and Alcantera in the minors.

[Guest]

Ellsbury and Choo/Cano plz.

I *really* want them to go after Cano. He's a very good player, it's a position of need, he's Latino, and by all accounts a good leader. I know he's likely not going to earn all he makes but good teams do this sort of thing.

 

That said, it's not likely with Baez and Alcantera in the minors.

 

I could go either way. He's a great player and I'd be ecstatic to add a great player (and it's not like there's going to be all these other places to spend money in the coming years), but the contract is going to be absolutely insane and he's,what, 30?

[Sammy Sofa]

Ellsbury and Choo/Cano plz.

I *really* want them to go after Cano. He's a very good player, it's a position of need, he's Latino, and by all accounts a good leader. I know he's likely not going to earn all he makes but good teams do this sort of thing.

 

That said, it's not likely with Baez and Alcantera in the minors.

 

I could go either way. He's a great player and I'd be ecstatic to add a great player (and it's not like there's going to be all these other places to spend money in the coming years), but the contract is going to be absolutely insane and he's,what, 30?

 

Look, they're going to have to bite the bullet and have some guys that are going on the team past when it's going to be ideal to be paying them what they're getting. Cano's been putting up fantastic numbers, he is only 30 and they need a bat like his desperately. Backload the contract to fit it in to whatever limitations might exist now and start taking some real steps to having a team that isn't going to be almost completely relying on the prospects panning out.

[Guest]

Apparently it's not that big a jump:

 

@CubsDen: More like $15M in new players, possibly less.

 

I feel like his math on the existing commitments (and arb guesses) has to be off. I remember figuring it a month or two ago and there should have been close to that much left without a payroll jump, right?

 

Hopefully his info (a $25-30M jump over last year) is good and his math is just crappy.

 

Yeah, I tried explaining to him on twitter his math was wrong and it didn't seem like he was following. He's adding the incremental salaries from last year and ignoring that they don't owe Marmol, Garza, DeJesus, Baker, Hairston and Soriano(partial) ~36 million that they did on Opening Day 2013.

 

Arguello is uhhhh really an odd cat.

[Guest]

Look, they're going to have to bite the bullet and have some guys that are going on the team past when it's going to be ideal to be paying them what they're getting. Cano's been putting up fantastic numbers, he is only 30 and they need a bat like his desperately. Backload the contract to fit it in to whatever limitations might exist now and start taking some real steps to having a team that isn't going to be almost completely relying on the prospects panning out.

 

First of all, while I think we can agree that there are ways to limit the "burden" of the back-end of a big contract, we don't have to go to the other end of the spectrum and say it's a risk free endeavor. We're seeing examples of that previously with the Red Sox, now with the Yankees(yes, I know there's a chasm between the Cubs and the Yankees), and soon with the Angels. That doesn't mean "don't sign high end free agents", but it means to be smart about it.

 

To me, one of the ways to be smart about it would be not to go after Cano. For the short to medium term impact you're looking at, you can get similar benefits(at a position of greater need), by committing to several years fewer than you'd need to with Cano. That's my worry, not that you pay Cano 25 million a year, but that you have to do it for 8+ years. In the Cubs' current position(needs in the OF, legion of IF prospects coming shortly), I'd much rather gamble on Ellsbury's injury history for 5-6 years than that Cano is the exception to the rule with super-long contracts hurting you.

[Guest]

Apparently it's not that big a jump:

 

@CubsDen: More like $15M in new players, possibly less.

 

I feel like his math on the existing commitments (and arb guesses) has to be off. I remember figuring it a month or two ago and there should have been close to that much left without a payroll jump, right?

 

Hopefully his info (a $25-30M jump over last year) is good and his math is just crappy.

 

Yeah, I tried explaining to him on twitter his math was wrong and it didn't seem like he was following. He's adding the incremental salaries from last year and ignoring that they don't owe Marmol, Garza, DeJesus, Baker, Hairston and Soriano(partial) ~36 million that they did on Opening Day 2013.

 

Arguello is uhhhh really an odd cat.

 

Yeah, he's backing off the total payroll number now, which with his info would mean the payroll would be ~100-105M. Definitely a positive sign, but not the unmitigated glee that 115-120 would have brought. You can still do a lot of things with 105 million though, especially since we've got some guys who have value but may be fungible in the right circumstances(Villanueva, Schierholtz).

[Sammy Sofa]

But we're not talking about them going out and stockpiling contracts a la the Yankees and Angels; we're talking about one guy. Presenting signing Cano is if it would be the prelude to a misguided spending spree is some very selective spin. He's a player that should be very productive for several more years and he frees up the Cubs to trade from a position of strength to upgrade elsewhere.

[Guest]

But we're not talking about them going out and stockpiling contracts a la the Yankees and Angels; we're talking about one guy. Presenting signing Cano is if it would be the prelude to a misguided spending spree is some very selective spin. He's a player that should be very productive for several more years and he frees up the Cubs to trade from a position of strength to upgrade elsewhere.

 

I'm not saying it's a prelude to a spending spree. Most simply, I'm saying there's no point in risking that Cano won't be an anchor in 8-10 years when you can make a similar gamble on Ellsbury for 5 to 7 and get very similar benefit at a position of greater organizational need. It's not just "Cano's contract is too long", it's "Cano wants a contract that's years longer than even the other elite FA".

[Guest]

 

Yeah, he's backing off the total payroll number now, which with his info would mean the payroll would be ~100-105M. Definitely a positive sign, but not the unmitigated glee that 115-120 would have brought. You can still do a lot of things with 105 million though, especially since we've got some guys who have value but may be fungible in the right circumstances(Villanueva, Schierholtz).

 

Yeah. I just hope he was told that it'd be an increase of 25-35M and he's just really bad at interpreting that.

 

Even if it puts you at 100-105, that should be much more to spend than the $15M he's figuring.

[Sammy Sofa]

But we're not talking about them going out and stockpiling contracts a la the Yankees and Angels; we're talking about one guy. Presenting signing Cano is if it would be the prelude to a misguided spending spree is some very selective spin. He's a player that should be very productive for several more years and he frees up the Cubs to trade from a position of strength to upgrade elsewhere.

 

I'm not saying it's a prelude to a spending spree. Most simply, I'm saying there's no point in risking that Cano won't be an anchor in 8-10 years when you can make a similar gamble on Ellsbury for 5 to 7 and get very similar benefit at a position of greater organizational need. It's not just "Cano's contract is too long", it's "Cano wants a contract that's years longer than even the other elite FA".

 

Right, because he's been more reliable/consistent/however you want to put it. I'm not saying it's Cano or bust, but I really, really, really hope the Cubs aren't Ellsbury or bust between the two. Plus I think Cano is more a twofer in that his signing is more likely to lead to an impact trade as opposed to Ellsbury.

[Guest]

 

Yeah, he's backing off the total payroll number now, which with his info would mean the payroll would be ~100-105M. Definitely a positive sign, but not the unmitigated glee that 115-120 would have brought. You can still do a lot of things with 105 million though, especially since we've got some guys who have value but may be fungible in the right circumstances(Villanueva, Schierholtz).

 

Yeah. I just hope he was told that it'd be an increase of 25-35M and he's just really bad at interpreting that.

 

Even if it puts you at 100-105, that should be much more to spend than the $15M he's figuring.

 

That's true. "15M to spend after raises" puts the payroll at 85 million, unless the dead weight to Soriano/Fujikawa/Concepcion was being completely ignored or something. In any case, the super-ambiguous way he's been going about this doesn't lead to a whole lot of confidence that the info is accurate, whether it's the high end or the low end interpretation.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't know how to read that as anything but a [expletive] sandwich 85M payroll.

[Guest]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2013/11/source-cubs-will-increase-payroll-by-25-35m-over-last-year/

 

 

Well, now for some good news.

 

A source tells me that the Cubs plan to increase their payroll by as much as $35M next year on top of last year's beginning budget, which was $88M by one estimate, but pick whatever number you choose. I'm talking about a flat rate increase, not a percentage increase.

What the hell is he even trying to say here?

 

1 - Why would ANYBODY think he's saying anything about percentages? He keeps saying "flat" increase in response as though it's somehow a response to the questions he's getting.

 

2 - If it's an increase over last year's beginning budget, and you go with that $88M number, then the "budget" is $113-123M. How is he not seeing this? He says this but then keeps insisting that you have to remove arb raises directly from the $25-35M figure and, I guess, pretend that the money coming off the books is vanishing into thin air.

 

Then a few people question him on this, which all seems easy enough to understand, and he replies with condescension and explanations that don't explain anything.

 

If it's just "payroll will go up $25-35M from where it is right now at this very moment" it's not really much of an increase, but it's nice to know they're actually going to spend that money, I guess. Not that I ever believed they'd go into the season with a $70-75M payroll.

[Guest]

That number doesn't matter. That's my point.

 

Cubs will increase payroll by $25-$35M from whatever it is you want it to be. This is not about total payroll..

 

The article is about $25-$35M increase, how much of it will go to internal raises and how much will be left to spend. If you have a comment on that, I'd like to hear that -- but I couldn't care less about the total payroll figure for the purposes of this article.

 

Does he not see how what it's an increase from is completely relevant and completely determines what he's actually reporting?

[SouthSideRyan]

Cubs will increase payroll by $25-$35M from whatever it is you want it to be. This is not about total payroll..

 

 

Erm.

[davell]

I'm a big fan of Arguello, he's excellent with minor league coverage and gets his hands on some pretty good rumors. Where in the hell did he get 88 mill from though? Our opening Day payroll last year was around 106. TT has it right, I guess? He's not taking into account Garza, Marmol, etc? So while we're evidently NOT talking about raising it to 131-141, which is what basically was implied, we're talking about it being 113-123, maybe? This has been very odd, to say the least. Maybe just a way to definitively let us know payroll is NOT dropping? He's talking 105 now, which could have easily just been mentioned as us keeping payroll static.....

[Guest]

Cubs will increase payroll by $25-$35M from whatever it is you want it to be. This is not about total payroll..

 

 

Erm.

 

Exactly.

 

I want it to be from $125M, plz.

[Sammy Sofa]

Cubs will increase payroll by $25-$35M from whatever it is you want it to be. This is not about total payroll..

 

 

Erm.

 

He's just being philosophical, man.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

According to B-R our payroll was 75.9M last year... is that true? wtf.