Offseason Rumors

[Bobson Dugnutt]

Oh wow what a great trade for the Orioles!

[Tryptamine]

Bruce Levine ‏@MLBBruceLevine 12m

 

Theo Epstein on Samardzija contract talks . " nothing has changed " team has offered deal in the 5 year $55 million area . .

 

That puts him at roughly 13M a year over those 3 FA years. I think I'd go up to 5/61 which puts him at 15M a year over those 3 years. Anything over that and it's time to move him.

[Infrequent Poster]

Not a rumor, but one of the guys over at Orioleshangout works for Baseball America and he put together a mock trade that went like this

 

Washington gets Chris Davis and Brian Matusz

Cubs get AJ Cole and Eduardo Rodriguez

Orioles get Samardzija+Rendon+Vogelbach+Souza

 

Giving up Samardzija and Vogelbach for that would be one horrific trade. A couple mid rotation arms, yay.

 

It's from Baseball Prospectus.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22345#.UqCJVrRHDzs.twitter

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If I'm Samardzija, I consider that pretty lowball. You want to buy out my three most lucrative FA years? Go bigger.

[jersey cubs fan]

If I'm Samardzija, I consider that pretty lowball. You want to buy out my three most lucrative FA years? Go bigger.

 

Yeah, considering he's already made millions in his life, there's very little incentive to settle for such a relatively low number.

[Tryptamine]

Not a rumor, but one of the guys over at Orioleshangout works for Baseball America and he put together a mock trade that went like this

 

Washington gets Chris Davis and Brian Matusz

Cubs get AJ Cole and Eduardo Rodriguez

Orioles get Samardzija+Rendon+Vogelbach+Souza

 

Giving up Samardzija and Vogelbach for that would be one horrific trade. A couple mid rotation arms, yay.

 

It's from Baseball Prospectus.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22345#.UqCJVrRHDzs.twitter

 

Yeah, my bad on that mistake.

[Guest]

Bruce Levine ‏@MLBBruceLevine 12m

 

Theo Epstein on Samardzija contract talks . " nothing has changed " team has offered deal in the 5 year $55 million area . .

 

That puts him at roughly 13M a year over those 3 FA years. I think I'd go up to 5/61 which puts him at 15M a year over those 3 years. Anything over that and it's time to move him.

 

Bruce Levine ‏@MLBBruceLevine 35m

Let me be clear ,Theo never mentioned any contract figure . Another source has indicted the Cub offer is higher than 5 yrs $55. Mil.

[ctcf]

Not a rumor, but one of the guys over at Orioleshangout works for Baseball America and he put together a mock trade that went like this

 

Washington gets Chris Davis and Brian Matusz

Cubs get AJ Cole and Eduardo Rodriguez

Orioles get Samardzija+Rendon+Vogelbach+Souza

 

Giving up Samardzija and Vogelbach for that would be one horrific trade. A couple mid rotation arms, yay.

 

You didn't even have to mention Orioleshangout. It was pretty easy to see which team he's a fan of just from the trade.

 

That is a hilariously terrible trade for the Cubs.

[davell]

If I'm Samardzija, I consider that pretty lowball. You want to buy out my three most lucrative FA years? Go bigger.

 

Yeah, considering he's already made millions in his life, there's very little incentive to settle for such a relatively low number.

The point of getting your own to sign an early extension is to get a hometown discount. Shark got more than most in his original deal and arguably didn't even provide value during it.

 

It's a moot point though, I'm fairly confident that a NTC, not money, is the actual hang up here.

[Guest]

If I'm Samardzija, I consider that pretty lowball. You want to buy out my three most lucrative FA years? Go bigger.

 

Yeah, considering he's already made millions in his life, there's very little incentive to settle for such a relatively low number.

The point of getting your own to sign an early extension is to get a hometown discount. Shark got more than most in his original deal and arguably didn't even provide value during it.

 

It's a moot point though, I'm fairly confident that a NTC, not money, is the actual hang up here.

 

The point is for the team to lock the player in at a reasonable rate and the player to lock in some long term security and make serious money for the first time.

 

Samardzija already has made serious money, way more than most with his service time, therefore he lacks the motivation for the latter half of that equation.

 

Just because the Cubs paid him a lot of money a few years ago when he wasn't that good doesn't mean he owes the Cubs anything in return or should be expected to give them a discount or something.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I always forget exactly how huge Samardzija's initial contract and the one he signed for five-years a year later was. The idea that the Cubs never spent in the draft back in the day is colored by a couple of high-profile busts, mostly Simpson.

 

 

Edit: Numbers are not as interchangeable as they seem

Edited December 6, 2013 by Hairyducked Idiot

[jersey cubs fan]

I always forget exactly how huge Samardzija's initial contract and the one he signed five years later was.

 

Huh? His initial contract wasn't actually all that huge. He got $1m, with a bonus for giving up football, but they actually ripped up that contract and signed a new one the next season when he actually did give up football. There was no "five years later deal" other than the series of one year deals he's been on under Theo's regime.

[davell]

If I'm Samardzija, I consider that pretty lowball. You want to buy out my three most lucrative FA years? Go bigger.

 

Yeah, considering he's already made millions in his life, there's very little incentive to settle for such a relatively low number.

The point of getting your own to sign an early extension is to get a hometown discount. Shark got more than most in his original deal and arguably didn't even provide value during it.

 

It's a moot point though, I'm fairly confident that a NTC, not money, is the actual hang up here.

 

The point is for the team to lock the player in at a reasonable rate and the player to lock in some long term security and make serious money for the first time.

 

Samardzija already has made serious money, way more than most with his service time, therefore he lacks the motivation for the latter half of that equation.

 

Just because the Cubs paid him a lot of money a few years ago when he wasn't that good doesn't mean he owes the Cubs anything in return or should be expected to give them a discount or something.

Again, the NTC is likely the reason. But if you're extending your own, the vast majority take a bit less to stick around. Personally, if we agreed with him anywhere between 5/55 up to 5/70ish, I'm fine with it. But most do give a slight discount on their first long term deal. To me, him making money earlier shouldn't change that equation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I always forget exactly how huge Samardzija's initial contract and the one he signed five years later was.

 

Huh? His initial contract wasn't actually all that huge. He got $1m, with a bonus for giving up football, but they actually ripped up that contract and signed a new one the next season when he actually did give up football. There was no "five years later deal" other than the series of one year deals he's been on under Theo's regime.

 

Derp, I meant the five-year deal he signed one year later.

 

But the bonus was an extra $6.25m for giving up football, and when they tore that up he got $7.8m in guaranteed money.

[jersey cubs fan]

Again, the NTC is likely the reason. But if you're extending your own, the vast majority take a bit less to stick around. Personally, if we agreed with him anywhere between 5/55 up to 5/70ish, I'm fine with it. But most do give a slight discount on their first long term deal. To me, him making money earlier shouldn't change that equation.

 

I feel like you aren't getting what people are saying.

 

The way you get a young guy to agree to a team friendly deal is by offering him the first "you can retire on that" contract of his life. Most of these guys got maybe a couple million dollars to sign and have made the minimum for a couple years. They have a large incentive to sign early, and will be willing to give up a free agent year or two exactly because this contract will set him up for life just in case he gets hurt before free agency. Jeff Samardzija never went through that process. He got his huge guarantee very early in his career and never went through a season making the minimum. He's made in excess of $2m in every year of his career and even if he gets hurt tomorrow, he should be able to live a comfortable life without ever working again. He has less incentive to sign that extension for below market. And the stories we have heard about the Cubs offer indicate that it is way below market.

 

You can go ahead and think that what he made shouldn't change the equation. But it does when it comes to how willing Samardzija will be to settle for less than the maximum.

[mul21]

Again, the NTC is likely the reason. But if you're extending your own, the vast majority take a bit less to stick around. Personally, if we agreed with him anywhere between 5/55 up to 5/70ish, I'm fine with it. But most do give a slight discount on their first long term deal. To me, him making money earlier shouldn't change that equation.

 

Then you're not understanding the reason most guys give a discount. They want their millions sooner rather than later. Shark already has millions and doesn't need to give a discount to get the money early since he already has it. Plus, you figure in the age factor and he's probably only getting one shot at a big money deal. I have no problem with his strategy and I'd likely do the same thing.

 

If the NTC really is the hold up, I'm not sure how to feel about that. I'd probably agree to a list of 6-8 teams, but definitely not a full NTC.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If Starlin Castro had been hit by a bus before he signed his extension, he had just barely made his first million.

[davell]

I understand what you're saying, I also get Shark evidently wants to maximize his earnings. If I 'm extending him though, I'm still looking at it as his first FA deal and trying to get a discount.

 

The Shark camp may be in the total opposite mindset. They may very well want 20-25 mill per year to buy out the first 3 seasons of his FA. As has been mentioned, Shark is betting on himself.

 

Of course, he said the same last year. So maybe what we see is all we're going to get. Is that enough to give him 20 mill per year in his first 3 FA years? Not if I can get a very solid return for him, in my opinion.

 

Think it's a moot discussion though, the NTC is what's getting him dealt.

[jersey cubs fan]

I understand what you're saying, I also get Shark evidently wants to maximize his earnings. If I 'm extending him though, I'm still looking at it as his first FA deal and trying to get a discount.

 

The Shark camp may be in the total opposite mindset. They may very well want 20-25 mill per year to buy out the first 3 seasons of his FA. As has been mentioned, Shark is betting on himself.

 

Of course, he said the same last year. So maybe what we see is all we're going to get. Is that enough to give him 20 mill per year in his first 3 FA years? Not if I can get a very solid return for him, in my opinion.

 

Think it's a moot discussion though, the NTC is what's getting him dealt.

 

How is a potential difference of $10m/year "moot" in favor of a hang-up over a NTC?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Think it's a moot discussion though, the NTC is what's getting him dealt.

 

The fact that he's about to turn 29 and we don't think we're likely to compete in 2014 and probably 2015 is what's getting him dealt.

[davell]

I understand what you're saying, I also get Shark evidently wants to maximize his earnings. If I 'm extending him though, I'm still looking at it as his first FA deal and trying to get a discount.

 

The Shark camp may be in the total opposite mindset. They may very well want 20-25 mill per year to buy out the first 3 seasons of his FA. As has been mentioned, Shark is betting on himself.

 

Of course, he said the same last year. So maybe what we see is all we're going to get. Is that enough to give him 20 mill per year in his first 3 FA years? Not if I can get a very solid return for him, in my opinion.

 

Think it's a moot discussion though, the NTC is what's getting him dealt.

 

How is a potential difference of $10m/year "moot" in favor of a hang-up over a NTC?

Because no one has any clue about numbers being discussed. Other than Levine's 5/55 comment, followed by "they offered more than that" we've got no clue on money. If they're 10 mill a year off, it'd likely be leaked by one side or the other, wouldn't you think?

[Guest]

I understand what you're saying, I also get Shark evidently wants to maximize his earnings. If I 'm extending him though, I'm still looking at it as his first FA deal and trying to get a discount.

 

The Shark camp may be in the total opposite mindset. They may very well want 20-25 mill per year to buy out the first 3 seasons of his FA. As has been mentioned, Shark is betting on himself.

 

Of course, he said the same last year. So maybe what we see is all we're going to get. Is that enough to give him 20 mill per year in his first 3 FA years? Not if I can get a very solid return for him, in my opinion.

 

Think it's a moot discussion though, the NTC is what's getting him dealt.

 

How is a potential difference of $10m/year "moot" in favor of a hang-up over a NTC?

Because no one has any clue about numbers being discussed. Other than Levine's 5/55 comment, followed by "they offered more than that" we've got no clue on money. If they're 10 mill a year off, it'd likely be leaked by one side or the other, wouldn't you think?

 

That doesn't make the money moot nor do we have any more of a clue about an NTC and how much he wants one. Where are you getting this from?

[jersey cubs fan]

Because no one has any clue about numbers being discussed. Other than Levine's 5/55 comment, followed by "they offered more than that" we've got no clue on money. If they're 10 mill a year off, it'd likely be leaked by one side or the other, wouldn't you think?

 

These things always come down to money. A NTC is only valuable in as much as it is a negotiating tool that can get you more money. Why are you assuming the numbers would be leaked but the NTC battle wouldn't?

[Guest]

I always forget exactly how huge Samardzija's initial contract and the one he signed for five-years a year later was. The idea that the Cubs never spent in the draft back in the day is colored by a couple of high-profile busts, mostly Simpson.

 

 

Edit: Numbers are not as interchangeable as they seem

 

Is that a thing? The Cubs always spent on their drafts under Hendry/Wilken, they just didn't do it well, and they didn't go way super crazy like we thought Theo/Jed might have before the CBA nixed it.

[davell]

I understand what you're saying, I also get Shark evidently wants to maximize his earnings. If I 'm extending him though, I'm still looking at it as his first FA deal and trying to get a discount.

 

The Shark camp may be in the total opposite mindset. They may very well want 20-25 mill per year to buy out the first 3 seasons of his FA. As has been mentioned, Shark is betting on himself.

 

Of course, he said the same last year. So maybe what we see is all we're going to get. Is that enough to give him 20 mill per year in his first 3 FA years? Not if I can get a very solid return for him, in my opinion.

 

Think it's a moot discussion though, the NTC is what's getting him dealt.

 

How is a potential difference of $10m/year "moot" in favor of a hang-up over a NTC?

Because no one has any clue about numbers being discussed. Other than Levine's 5/55 comment, followed by "they offered more than that" we've got no clue on money. If they're 10 mill a year off, it'd likely be leaked by one side or the other, wouldn't you think?

 

That doesn't make the money moot nor do we have any more of a clue about an NTC and how much he wants one. Where are you getting this from?

Unless things have changed, it was brought up a bunch last year in the negotiations that Shark was insistent on one.