The Jon Lester Signs w/ Cubs - 6 yrs/$155 Million

[Guest]

 

Or 2014 if they added anything of long-term value in 2012 or 2013.

 

aside from rizzo, arrieta, and the bullpen arms + CJ that they got from the trades?

 

they pretty much maxed out payroll every year but this year unless you think theo is lying and has chosen to leave tens of millions of dollars in the ricketts' coffers every year.

 

So you think 73 wins + Tanaka was the best case scenario for 2014?

 

i'm saying i don't think they could have been expected to get much more of long term value in 2012 and 2013 than they did, which was a hell of a lot.

[Guest]

Mooney mentioned something about how Lester has been asking around about pitching at Wrigley.

 

Just a sentence in his piece on Lester that doesn't say much we don't already otherwise know.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/cubs-previewing-jon-lester-sweepstakes

[Brian]

ah yes, the report with a rumor of the free agent having interest in the Cubs, a key step in the process of the free agent signing somewhere else.

[Guest]

www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/3 ... C2G9PldXFC

 

Tuesday night’s playoff pitching matchup between the Oakland Athletics’ Jon Lester and the Kansas City Royals’ James Shields was a showcase of two starters who, insiders suggest, top the Cubs’ list of free-agent targets. It’s unclear how much beyond the $100 million-plus starting point the Cubs will go for a guy like Lester, who’s familiar and trusted to Epstein and Hoyer from their time with him in Boston. But the Cubs have more than $35 million in payroll flexibility created just by expired commitments to past players (such as $13 million for Alfonso Soriano) and in $20  million squirreled away out of this year’s budget.

 

Even if the 2015 payroll declines some from this year’s roughly $100 million, the Cubs will have plenty of room to work.

 

In addition to Lester and/or Shields, look for the Cubs to explore a reunion with 2014 flip-guy pitcher Jason Hammel and to seek as many as two productive veteran hitters with leadership qualities, if not playoff experience.

[ctcf]

Oh man it's weird to think the Cubs are finally done paying Soriano.

[abuck1220]

it's weird to think that people thought paying soriano crippled the team or whatever.

[Guest]

Soriano has been nearly 20% of the team's payroll the last 3 years. That doesn't mean it was a huge mistake to sign him, because his performance didn't crater(not with the Cubs at least) and you can't exactly forecast "team is sold and payroll drops 30 million" when you sign a guy. But his deal certainly didn't help, and it substantially hurt the 2014 team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Soriano has been nearly 20% of the team's payroll the last 3 years. That doesn't mean it was a huge mistake to sign him, because his performance didn't crater(not with the Cubs at least) and you can't exactly forecast "team is sold and payroll drops 30 million" when you sign a guy. But his deal certainly didn't help, and it substantially hurt the 2014 team.

 

When you can't be bothered to spend the money you have, money you don't can't be that hurtful.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, how did he substantially hurt us in a season where we "rolled over money" for the future. I doubt an extra 14M to spend was going to make us go out and sign Ellsbury.

[Guest]

Yeah, how did he substantially hurt us in a season where we "rolled over money" for the future. I doubt an extra 14M to spend was going to make us go out and sign Ellsbury.

 

You of all people are going to try to say that having extra money(and not a trifling amount either) to spend is meaningless? You're going to approach an offseason with X to spend differently than when you have X -15 million to spend. Plus we're talking about a multi-year deal here. Without Soriano, maybe they would've been able to more easily stretch for a guy like Sanchez or [insert your 'IFA that got away' here] knowing that for half the deal they'd have ~20% more payroll available to them. Maybe Scott Baker becomes Liriano instead, I dunno. I do know that when you're working with financial limitations, having a huge chunk of your payroll in one post-prime player who later was traded and became dead money is going to make a material difference in your planning.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Given the front office's words and actions, I do not believe that this specific $15m would have changed their approach meaningfully.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, how did he substantially hurt us in a season where we "rolled over money" for the future. I doubt an extra 14M to spend was going to make us go out and sign Ellsbury.

 

You of all people are going to try to say that having extra money(and not a trifling amount either) to spend is meaningless? You're going to approach an offseason with X to spend differently than when you have X -15 million to spend. Plus we're talking about a multi-year deal here. Without Soriano, maybe they would've been able to more easily stretch for a guy like Sanchez or [insert your 'IFA that got away' here] knowing that for half the deal they'd have ~20% more payroll available to them. Maybe Scott Baker becomes Liriano instead, I dunno. I do know that when you're working with financial limitations, having a huge chunk of your payroll in one post-prime player who later was traded and became dead money is going to make a material difference in your planning.

 

My opinion is that thus far their strategy is that they have a number they feel a guy is worth and they won't go much beyond that. Maybe this changes now that they're interested in being good, but in previous seasons I don't buy it.

[mul21]

Yeah, how did he substantially hurt us in a season where we "rolled over money" for the future. I doubt an extra 14M to spend was going to make us go out and sign Ellsbury.

 

You of all people are going to try to say that having extra money(and not a trifling amount either) to spend is meaningless? You're going to approach an offseason with X to spend differently than when you have X -15 million to spend. Plus we're talking about a multi-year deal here. Without Soriano, maybe they would've been able to more easily stretch for a guy like Sanchez or [insert your 'IFA that got away' here] knowing that for half the deal they'd have ~20% more payroll available to them. Maybe Scott Baker becomes Liriano instead, I dunno. I do know that when you're working with financial limitations, having a huge chunk of your payroll in one post-prime player who later was traded and became dead money is going to make a material difference in your planning.

 

My opinion is that thus far their strategy is that they have a number they feel a guy is worth and they won't go much beyond that. Maybe this changes now that they're interested in being good, but in previous seasons I don't buy it.

 

This is reasonable and believable, and also probably right.

[Guest]

Yeah, how did he substantially hurt us in a season where we "rolled over money" for the future. I doubt an extra 14M to spend was going to make us go out and sign Ellsbury.

 

You of all people are going to try to say that having extra money(and not a trifling amount either) to spend is meaningless? You're going to approach an offseason with X to spend differently than when you have X -15 million to spend. Plus we're talking about a multi-year deal here. Without Soriano, maybe they would've been able to more easily stretch for a guy like Sanchez or [insert your 'IFA that got away' here] knowing that for half the deal they'd have ~20% more payroll available to them. Maybe Scott Baker becomes Liriano instead, I dunno. I do know that when you're working with financial limitations, having a huge chunk of your payroll in one post-prime player who later was traded and became dead money is going to make a material difference in your planning.

 

Yep. Of course it is.

[Guest]

Yeah, how did he substantially hurt us in a season where we "rolled over money" for the future. I doubt an extra 14M to spend was going to make us go out and sign Ellsbury.

 

You of all people are going to try to say that having extra money(and not a trifling amount either) to spend is meaningless? You're going to approach an offseason with X to spend differently than when you have X -15 million to spend. Plus we're talking about a multi-year deal here. Without Soriano, maybe they would've been able to more easily stretch for a guy like Sanchez or [insert your 'IFA that got away' here] knowing that for half the deal they'd have ~20% more payroll available to them. Maybe Scott Baker becomes Liriano instead, I dunno. I do know that when you're working with financial limitations, having a huge chunk of your payroll in one post-prime player who later was traded and became dead money is going to make a material difference in your planning.

 

My opinion is that thus far their strategy is that they have a number they feel a guy is worth and they won't go much beyond that. Maybe this changes now that they're interested in being good, but in previous seasons I don't buy it.

 

This is reasonable and believable, and also probably right.

 

I think that number changes the more money they have available because that's how things work.

[mul21]

 

I think that number changes the more money they have available because that's how things work.

 

I think it has far less to do with available money than it does perceived closeness to being competitive/winning.

[Guest]

 

I think that number changes the more money they have available because that's how things work.

 

I think it has far less to do with available money than it does perceived closeness to being competitive/winning.

 

I think it has a lot to do with both.

 

I don't think they operate the same way the last 3 years if they had $200M or even $150M in the budget (without getting into the existing commitments and how they impact available payroll).

[nocode416]

Probably doesn't mean much, given free agency has yet to begin, but I am friends with Jon Lester's wife's family. I'm not really wanting to provide "proof," but I worked in Greenville, SC, with the Lester's wife's dad when Lester and the wife met during Lester's rehab.

 

Anyways, it is my understanding that this is a Yankees/Cubs battle. I recently spoke with the wife's mom and, of all freaking things, she mentioned that the Cubs need to improve their stadium's children's daycare. It's the small things, boys...

[Guest]

Probably doesn't mean much, given free agency has yet to begin, but I am friends with Jon Lester's wife's family. I'm not really wanting to provide "proof," but I worked in Greenville, SC, with the Lester's wife's dad when Lester and the wife met during Lester's rehab.

 

Anyways, it is my understanding that this is a Yankees/Cubs battle. I recently spoke with the wife's mom and, of all freaking things, she mentioned that the Cubs need to improve their stadium's children's daycare. It's the small things, boys...

 

if this is true, lmao

[KingCubsFan]

 

I think that number changes the more money they have available because that's how things work.

 

I think it has far less to do with available money than it does perceived closeness to being competitive/winning.

 

I think it has a lot to do with both.

 

I don't think they operate the same way the last 3 years if they had $200M or even $150M in the budget (without getting into the existing commitments and how they impact available payroll).

I think they would have operated pretty similarly, to be honest. Maybe we get one additional IFA.

[Guest]

 

I think that number changes the more money they have available because that's how things work.

 

I think it has far less to do with available money than it does perceived closeness to being competitive/winning.

 

I think it has a lot to do with both.

 

I don't think they operate the same way the last 3 years if they had $200M or even $150M in the budget (without getting into the existing commitments and how they impact available payroll).

I think they would have operated pretty similarly, to be honest. Maybe we get one additional IFA.

 

If you don't think they would have operated differently even with double the budget I'm not sure what to say.

[SouthSideRyan]

Lot of rollover

[Guest]

less talk of that sadness and more talk about how we need to hire babysitters and put together a nice playroom

[SouthSideRyan]

Better polish up that resume Roast.

[davell]

Probably doesn't mean much, given free agency has yet to begin, but I am friends with Jon Lester's wife's family. I'm not really wanting to provide "proof," but I worked in Greenville, SC, with the Lester's wife's dad when Lester and the wife met during Lester's rehab.

 

Anyways, it is my understanding that this is a Yankees/Cubs battle. I recently spoke with the wife's mom and, of all freaking things, she mentioned that the Cubs need to improve their stadium's children's daycare. It's the small things, boys...

 

if this is true, lmao

 

I think it's so out there that it basically has to be true. Can PTR get the city to contribute though? What do the rooftops have to say about this? And can adding to the play area pass the rigorous city zoning laws? And if so, what if they have to order extra steel for it? Can it be done in time? Too many unknowns here, I think the Yankees are the clear favorites.