2015 Rotation

[SouthSideRyan]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

 

Closer to 55M

[bukie]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

Why does it matter whether Jackson pitches at all, if there are better options available?

[Guest]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

Don't think there's a chance we come away from the offseason without an ace.

[Guest]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

 

Closer to 55M

And freight-yard stew for everyone!

[Felix Leiter]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

Don't think there's a chance we come away from the offseason without an ace.

 

Disagree. I don't think the FO will go beyond 5/$120 on anybody. Lester will be 31 next year and he's the only one I'd do that for.

 

I also would add Neil Rameriz to the mix. I think they'll stretch him out in ST and let him start.

[Guest]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

 

I think it's pretty damn unrealistic that is the Cubs 2015 opening day rotation.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

 

I think it's pretty damn unrealistic that is the Cubs 2015 opening day rotation.

 

We are getting an 'ace' this year, Theo has all but said it already. I think its easy to read between the lines some. I believe Plan A will be to sign either Lester or Scherzer ... Plan B involves trading prospects for an 'ace'. I could see both plans put in motion at same time but either way, I'm confident Jake won't be our Opening Day starter.

[SouthSideRyan]

Is there anybody reasonably available via trade other than Hamels?

[Felix Leiter]

Arrieta, Turner, Hendricks, Wada, Doubront or Straily

 

We get all hot and bothered over Lester rumors only for the Yankees to sign him, and to learn weeks later that we never really had a chance.

 

Jackson to the pen, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then a $22MM bath.

 

Wood traded for something of use.

If we go this route, which I don't think is unrealistic, what would the payroll look like? $70 million (since we probably aren't signing any significant offensive pieces)?

 

I think it's pretty damn unrealistic that is the Cubs 2015 opening day rotation.

 

We are getting an 'ace' this year, Theo has all but said it already. I think its easy to read between the lines some. I believe Plan A will be to sign either Lester or Scherzer ... Plan B involves trading prospects for an 'ace'. I could see both plans put in motion at same time but either way, I'm confident Jake won't be our Opening Day starter.

 

Scherzer? He rejected 6/$144 from the Tigers. No way we pay that much for anyone.

[davell]

Is there anybody reasonably available via trade other than Hamels?

 

The Mets are certainly looking to deal pitching for a SS obviously. I don't see anyone else that has pitching to trade away. Not at the major league level anyway.

 

With our payroll being as low as it is, I can see us truly making a run at guys on a shorter term deal. Not Scherzer obviously, but I could see Lester taking 4/100 with an option tied to IP over a conventional 6/120 type deal elsewhere. Same with Shields. Maybe go 4/72, with the option,instead of 5/80.

 

At any rate, I think we're set up extremely well to offer more per year to shave a year or two off the length.

[Guest]

Is there anybody reasonably available via trade other than Hamels?

 

hamels is a [expletive] ace!

[Guest]

ohhhhhhhhhh wait wait wait, what ever happened to this idea that there will be so many aces out there for us to get that we won't have to trade for one?

 

yeah, you see how you a-scum

[Guest]

Is there anybody reasonably available via trade other than Hamels?

 

The Mets are certainly looking to deal pitching for a SS obviously. I don't see anyone else that has pitching to trade away. Not at the major league level anyway.

 

With our payroll being as low as it is, I can see us truly making a run at guys on a shorter term deal. Not Scherzer obviously, but I could see Lester taking 4/100 with an option tied to IP over a conventional 6/120 type deal elsewhere. Same with Shields. Maybe go 4/72, with the option,instead of 5/80.

 

At any rate, I think we're set up extremely well to offer more per year to shave a year or two off the length.

 

hamels for castro and with a nod to TT, they send us some cash

[Cubswin11]

Is there anybody reasonably available via trade other than Hamels?

There were reports at the deadline the Astros had Keuchel (2.9 fWAR) and McHugh (2 fWAR) available. I could see a scenario where Darvish was made available though he could be broken, just went to the DL with elbow inflammation, Cueto could be available at some point (he's a FA after next year), and all the mentioned Mets guys are probably available but it seems like they have unrealistic ideas on their return.

[davell]

Why trade something of serious value for Hamels when Lester, Scherzer, and Shields can be had for just money?

[jersey cubs fan]

Why trade something of serious value for Hamels when Lester, Scherzer, and Shields can be had for just money?

 

Because "just money" does not guarantee you actually get anything.

[Derwood]

Why trade something of serious value for Hamels when Lester, Scherzer, and Shields can be had for just money?

 

Because "just money" does not guarantee you actually get anything.

 

Whereas trading prospects guarantees only that you no longer have those prospects

[jersey cubs fan]

Why trade something of serious value for Hamels when Lester, Scherzer, and Shields can be had for just money?

 

Because "just money" does not guarantee you actually get anything.

 

Whereas trading prospects guarantees only that you no longer have those prospects

 

No, unless you stupidly trade prospects for air.

[Derwood]

Why trade something of serious value for Hamels when Lester, Scherzer, and Shields can be had for just money?

 

Because "just money" does not guarantee you actually get anything.

 

Whereas trading prospects guarantees only that you no longer have those prospects

 

No, unless you stupidly trade prospects for air.

 

If your argument is that you can whiff on all your free agents, you didn't word it very well

[jersey cubs fan]

Why trade something of serious value for Hamels when Lester, Scherzer, and Shields can be had for just money?

 

Because "just money" does not guarantee you actually get anything.

 

Whereas trading prospects guarantees only that you no longer have those prospects

 

No, unless you stupidly trade prospects for air.

 

If your argument is that you can whiff on all your free agents, you didn't word it very well

 

Apparently I have to spell it out for you.

 

Just because it takes "only money" to get a free agent does not mean that the free agent will choose your money. If you make a trade, the trade is made and the player is yours. You can't simply write off the concept of trading for players just because you think there is a possibility you can be the one team another player chooses in free agency.

[davell]

It's a defeatist mentality to trade for a guy just to make sure we get him. Not to mention, the Phillies would be stupid to deal Hamels prior to those guys signing as it is.

 

With where we're at in the rebuild and the money we have available, I'll be very surprised if we don't land one of those 3 FA. If we don't, I'm sure Hamels will still be on the market, as no one is going to want to meet their price on him before taking their shot at the others.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's a defeatist mentality to trade for a guy just to make sure we get him.

 

That is so dumb.

[Guest]

Why does Sulley have a hard on for trading Castro?

[Guest]

 

Just because it takes "only money" to get a free agent does not mean that the free agent will choose your money. If you make a trade, the trade is made and the player is yours. You can't simply write off the concept of trading for players just because you think there is a possibility you can be the one team another player chooses in free agency.

 

where were you the other [expletive] day when i needed you? every toadie on the motherfucking board was taking a shot at this seemingly innocent idea.

[Guest]

It's a defeatist mentality to trade for a guy just to make sure we get him. Not to mention, the Phillies would be stupid to deal Hamels prior to those guys signing as it is.

 

With where we're at in the rebuild and the money we have available, I'll be very surprised if we don't land one of those 3 FA. If we don't, I'm sure Hamels will still be on the market, as no one is going to want to meet their price on him before taking their shot at the others.

 

if you land Hamels, it makes the destination more attractive for another one of them, thereby securing two aces.