Offseason Rumors

[Hairyducked Idiot]

First reference to Jackson being a potential ship-out candidate. I was wondering when that was going to come up:

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/starting-samardzija-cubs-will-be-position-make-deals

 

Oh, and:

 

Where the Cubs had internally viewed 2015 as a breakthrough year last winter, now they are focusing more on 2016 in the big picture.

[Sammy Sofa]

Where the Cubs had internally viewed 2015 as a breakthrough year last winter, now they are focusing more on 2016 in the big picture.

 

http://www.jumpmankicks.com/stupid/mj-laughing.gif

[Guest]

Of course, that is preceeded by this quote:

 

But it doesn’t sound like president of baseball operations Theo Epstein is willing to tear apart a farm system that tied for fifth in Baseball America’s recent rankings.

 

Which is sorta true. However, those weren't BA's official farm system rankings. They were a different exercise to gauge potential near term impact and were weighted in...intesting ways.

[USSoccer]

Parallel fronts LOL.

[Backtobanks]

Parallel fronts LOL.

 

Yeah, Rookie league and low A ball.

[imb]

technically speaking, if front one starts at point A, shown here

----------------------------------------------------------A

 

While front two starts at point B, shown here

 

B----------------------------------------------------------

 

If point A goes backwards on that line while point B goes forward ...THEY ARE STILL PARALLEL YOU GUYS JUST GOT OWNED BY A LOOPHOLE

[Hairyducked Idiot]

technically speaking, if front one starts at point A, shown here

----------------------------------------------------------A

 

While front two starts at point B, shown here

 

B----------------------------------------------------------

 

If point A goes backwards on that line while point B goes forward ...THEY ARE STILL PARALLEL YOU GUYS JUST GOT OWNED BY A LOOPHOLE

 

Geometry, bitches

[WrigleyField 22]

Even though I just got owned by a loophole, my mind is blown that one side of the fronts is going to get that good.

[UMFan83]

Thanks Tunney

[davell]

I can't see E-Jax getting dealt right now. A very solid first half could change that though. If 2016 is the perceived year now, I guess selling high on Jackson before then makes sense.

[Cubswin11]

So who are some of the better prospect, as of now, for the 2015 draft?

[Boris]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/aaron-paul-boo-bitch.gif

[HoopsCubs]

The Cubs have had multiple conversations with the Oakland A's these past 2 days. My source hears a trade might be in the works to acquire one of the A's young relief pitchers, and to make the deal happen the Cubs would be willing to take on Alberto Callaspo's 1 year and $4.875M contract (and presumably play him at 2B for 3 months and flip him at the trade deadline).

[Cubswin11]

The Cubs have had multiple conversations with the Oakland A's these past 2 days. My source hears a trade might be in the works to acquire one of the A's young relief pitchers, and to make the deal happen the Cubs would be willing to take on Alberto Callaspo's 1 year and $4.875M contract (and presumably play him at 2B for 3 months and flip him at the trade deadline).

I've always liked Callaspo.

[Guest]

So who are some of the better prospect, as of now, for the 2015 draft?

 

Just to make you feel old, Mike Cameron's son is the top prospect in the 2015 draft.

[Guest]

If the payroll is ~100 million, then sure, taking on Callaspo as a stopgap until Baez is ready is fine as a price to getting 4-5 years of Cook or Doolittle. If the payroll is ~85 million, then that's a good bit of the available money just to add a reliever, especially early in the offseason.

[HoopsCubs]

I can't see E-Jax getting dealt right now. A very solid first half could change that though. If 2016 is the perceived year now, I guess selling high on Jackson before then makes sense.

 

If there is a pitching starved team out there looking to add 2 rotation pieces, and loses out on Tanaka, Garza, Santana, Jimenez, Kazmir, Nolasco, etc... in free agency, and doesn't have the luxury of trading prospects or surplus hitting to get a starter, then I could see that team looking at EJax's 3 years and 33 million, and saying "not ideal, but not bad either."

 

Personally, I think the Cubs could get the Giants and Blue Jays interested.

[davell]

I can't see E-Jax getting dealt right now. A very solid first half could change that though. If 2016 is the perceived year now, I guess selling high on Jackson before then makes sense.

 

If there is a pitching starved team out there looking to add 2 rotation pieces, and loses out on Tanaka, Garza, Santana, Jimenez, Kazmir, Nolasco, etc... in free agency, and doesn't have the luxury of trading prospects or surplus hitting to get a starter, then I could see that team looking at EJax's 3 years and 33 million, and saying "not ideal, but not bad either."

 

Personally, I think the Cubs could get the Giants and Blue Jays interested.

 

Oh, I think he IS tradeable. Just doubt we'd get much for him currently. If he has a 3ish ERA at the break next year, some team may give up a top 100 guy + at that point, based on the reasonable contract. Even with the decent peripherals, I think his true numbers look too bad for someone to give up a halfway solid return currently.

[davell]

If the payroll is ~100 million, then sure, taking on Callaspo as a stopgap until Baez is ready is fine as a price to getting 4-5 years of Cook or Doolittle. If the payroll is ~85 million, then that's a good bit of the available money just to add a reliever, especially early in the offseason.

 

They've talked about adding a closer. My guess is one solid reliever is all they'll add, so it'd basically be around the same money I'd expect them to give a closer. Except it'd fill 2 holes instead of just one. Subtracting one or both of Shark/Schierholtz salaries would give plenty of flexibility too.

[SouthSideRyan]

But trading Shark would open a gaping hole in the rotation...

[Boris]

At this point, I think they are just moving holes around on the roster. They aren't really about filling them with goodness.

[USSoccer]

Are we supposed to get excited over some reliever from OAK, who, as condition of trading for, comes with a waste of money in Alberto Callaspo attached?

 

If they're just going to spend the money poorly, why even spend it? Just to say you did?

[davell]

But trading Shark would open a gaping hole in the rotation...

I figure Josh Johnson at 1/12 is a lock for us.

[HoopsCubs]

I can't see E-Jax getting dealt right now. A very solid first half could change that though. If 2016 is the perceived year now, I guess selling high on Jackson before then makes sense.

 

If there is a pitching starved team out there looking to add 2 rotation pieces, and loses out on Tanaka, Garza, Santana, Jimenez, Kazmir, Nolasco, etc... in free agency, and doesn't have the luxury of trading prospects or surplus hitting to get a starter, then I could see that team looking at EJax's 3 years and 33 million, and saying "not ideal, but not bad either."

 

Personally, I think the Cubs could get the Giants and Blue Jays interested.

 

Oh, I think he IS tradeable. Just doubt we'd get much for him currently. If he has a 3ish ERA at the break next year, some team may give up a top 100 guy + at that point, based on the reasonable contract. Even with the decent peripherals, I think his true numbers look too bad for someone to give up a halfway solid return currently.

 

I was looking at it purely as salary relief. If I got just a fringe prospect, but freed up the $11M per season, I'd call it a win and move to the next order of business. He should have never been signed in the first place. We all knew it the day it happened - panic move after losing out on signing Anibal. Theo basically confessed to it this week.

[SouthSideRyan]

I can't see E-Jax getting dealt right now. A very solid first half could change that though. If 2016 is the perceived year now, I guess selling high on Jackson before then makes sense.

 

If there is a pitching starved team out there looking to add 2 rotation pieces, and loses out on Tanaka, Garza, Santana, Jimenez, Kazmir, Nolasco, etc... in free agency, and doesn't have the luxury of trading prospects or surplus hitting to get a starter, then I could see that team looking at EJax's 3 years and 33 million, and saying "not ideal, but not bad either."

 

Personally, I think the Cubs could get the Giants and Blue Jays interested.

 

Oh, I think he IS tradeable. Just doubt we'd get much for him currently. If he has a 3ish ERA at the break next year, some team may give up a top 100 guy + at that point, based on the reasonable contract. Even with the decent peripherals, I think his true numbers look too bad for someone to give up a halfway solid return currently.

 

I was looking at it purely as salary relief. If I got just a fringe prospect, but freed up the $11M per season, I'd call it a win and move to the next order of business. He should have never been signed in the first place. We all knew it the day it happened - panic move after losing out on signing Anibal. Theo basically confessed to it this week.

 

No, we all didn't know it. Jackson is still worth his contract. He only shouldn't have been signed in the first place if you don't plan on competing until 2017.