Jump to content
North Side Baseball
Posted
Superficially, it looks like I'd rather have Hendriks than Marshall, but like you say, it's not a decision worth expending energy on. Marshall is young and I'm always a touch intrigued when adding someone who has only been with one other organization to see if coaching can make a difference, but he's a ways from my MLB radar.
  • Replies 768
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Didn't see this anywhere. Not a bad claim. Bad last year but could turn it around. Wasn't he fairly highly rated in their system a year or two ago?

 

The Cubs have claimed right-hander Brett Marshall off waivers from the Yankees, according to MLB Daily Dish's Chris Cotillo (on Twitter). Marshall was designated for assignment last week when the Yankees made the signing of Carlos Beltran official.

 

Though he made a trio of relief appearances at the big league level in 2013, the bulk of his season was spent in Triple-A where he posted a 5.13 ERA with 7.8 K/9 and 4.4 BB/9 in 25 starts. He ranked sixth among Yankees prospects just one year ago, drawing praise for having the best changeup in their system. In 2012, Marshall posted a 3.52 ERA with 6.8 K/9 and 3.0 BB/9 in 158 1/3 innings at Double-A Trenton. Still just 23 years old, he's young enough to give the Cubs reason for optimism.

 

Posted
So, assuming Tanaka gets say, $120m + posting... is LA willing to spend $350m on 2 pitchers?

 

They already are. Kershaw + Grenke is 375 million if Kershaw doesn't opt out, ~315 million if he does.

Posted

Yeah.. weren't there reports that he turned down $300m?

 

That was probably a 10 or 11 year type deal, without the 5-year opt out.

 

I have no idea how a $300 million in guarantee'd money, 10 year deal is considered less outrageous than $215 over 7 with a 5 year opt out.

Posted

Yeah.. weren't there reports that he turned down $300m?

 

That was probably a 10 or 11 year type deal, without the 5-year opt out.

 

I have no idea how a $300 million in guarantee'd money, 10 year deal is considered less outrageous than $215 over 7 with a 5 year opt out.

 

b/c in 5 years, he'll sign another 5-year deal with a total value (of the 10 years) that far exceeds the $300m on the table now. Or, if he gets injured or something, he "only" gets $215m.

Posted
I have no idea how a $300 million in guarantee'd money, 10 year deal is considered less outrageous than $215 over 7 with a 5 year opt out.

 

Who knows if it was $300m guaranteed, or if the last $50+ was achieved through options becoming guaranteed with stipulations?

 

Who knows how this one is structured. It averages over $30m per year, but could be even higher over the first 5 years.

Posted
I think $300 mil over 10 years is more insane. I think this is more of a win for the Dodgers because it's still around the same amount per year, but it's less years. If Kershaw's arm falls off tomorrow, $300 mil guaranteed is still $85 million more in guaranteed money and that's pretty insane.
Posted
I think $300 mil over 10 years is more insane. I think this is more of a win for the Dodgers because it's still around the same amount per year, but it's less years. If Kershaw's arm falls off tomorrow, $300 mil guaranteed is still $85 million more in guaranteed money and that's pretty insane.

 

You don't know what was guaranteed.

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...