Could Cubs be building Schwarber's trade value?

[Tryptamine]

keep all my prospects

 

Nah, they really should trade some of them.

 

In a deal where the value is there yes, but Hamels isn't one of those deals.

[Tryptamine]

Yeah, they're not spending that much on 3 pitchers. One, they wouldn't put that many eggs in on guys that are of that age range. Two, PTR.

 

I figure they'll get a Kazmir level type soon and then go after one of Price/Zimmermann in the offseason. With the only possibility of adding another TOR type being a trade involving Castro or Javy+ for a young guy with the potential to turn into one.

 

I still think with the embarrassment of riches that is the Indian rotation, they'd be willing to move Salazar. If you threw Baez and Zagunis at them with the black hole they have at 3B and a capable starter in Zach McAllister able to replace Salazar, they might pull the trigger.

[Sammy Sofa]

keep all my prospects

 

Nah, they really should trade some of them.

 

In a deal where the value is there yes, but Hamels isn't one of those deals.

 

You're not locked into him for more than 4 years he's making less than what he'd get as a FA right now and he's a fantastic pitcher and he's barely a year older than the lesser pitcher you're willing to sign for 5 years and more money. That's a ton of value.

[Guest]

keep all my prospects

 

Nah, they really should trade some of them.

 

In a deal where the value is there yes, but Hamels isn't one of those deals.

 

You're so far up your own ass with this idea of value, you just can't understand that making a trade isn't always about value, sometimes it's about filling a need.

[Tryptamine]

keep all my prospects

 

Nah, they really should trade some of them.

 

In a deal where the value is there yes, but Hamels isn't one of those deals.

 

You're so far up your own ass with this idea of value, you just can't understand that making a trade isn't always about value, sometimes it's about filling a need.

 

The need is scoring runs, giving up middle of the order type bats doesn't do that.

[davell]

Our payroll next year is over 80 next year without counting Arrieta, Strop, Rondon, and Grimm. That'll push it very close to 100. We'll need to address CF and in all likelihood add a TOR type SP. We're only at 120 this season due to squirreling away 20 mill from the previous season.....Yes, attendance and some ad revenue will help a bit.

 

But there's no way in hell we're adding Hamels AND a TOR SP next year. Unless its a youngster who's got that upside and comes from a trade. It'd take a payroll of 150 mill otherwise to do it. I'm HOPING for 125-130. More than that and id be shocked. But that's enough for a CF and one SP. Good luck and I pray you're right if you think we'll be able to go higher than that.

[downsr30]

I think in any scenario of Hamels coming to CHC, the Cubs would ask the Phillies to pay half or more of his contract - which they have said they'd be willing to do in the right deal. That makes him just as valuable as Samardjiza last year, if not more.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davell]

I think in any scenario of Hamels coming to CHC, the Cubs would ask the Phillies to pay half or more of his contract - which they have said they'd be willing to do in the right deal. That makes him just as valuable as Samardjiza last year, if not more.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You realize that if they paid down half his deal, they'd be asking for a hell of a lot more than Schwarber and Baez, right?

[Ski]

i strongly suspect samardzija hates the cubs and wouldn't consider signing here unless the other options were terrible in comparison.

Didn't he hate the Cubs because they were bad and intentionally tanking while he was pitching for us? Ideally, we'll be competitive during his hypothetical contract.

[davell]

Don't forget the revenues of a team making a deep playoff run, if they're up to it. With a significant playoff run, the Cubs stand to make a [expletive] ton of money. With a near miss or short run, sure I could see hoping for a mere 5-10 increase in payroll - putting them on pace for their third below average league payroll for the third year in a row. If they want to make some real money this year and in the years before the media rights deals, then playoff wins are the way to go and where Hamels will help significantly and immediately.

 

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/10/02/how-much-value-does-a-postseason-appearance-hold-for-mlb-franchises/

 

http://vincegennaro.mlblogs.com/2012/08/06/the-payoff-for-winning-comes-from-the-postseason-part-1/

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/kansas-city-royals-offseason-plans-finances-payroll-success-103114

 

Again, you've unfortunately got to start at 100, not 120, since that's where payroll would have been without the Tanaka money.

[Guest]

Cot's has the payroll at 120 for this year, but only counts the pro-ration of Lester's signing bonus(5 million) towards this year. If the Tanaka fund covers the 15 million signing bonus payment due this year (reasonable), then the baseline for next year is 115 million, and the committed money could be considered only 77 million because Lester isn't technically owed anything else on the signing bonus until 2018.

[davell]

What happened to Shields money? They offered 20 million a year.

 

They offered 80 mill on a 4 year contract, not PER year though, evidently with a ton of deferments. I think I remember seeing somewhere the first year salary was well under 10. It was supposedly EXTREMELY backloaded.

 

They'll get as creative as they can obviously, but the fact they had to do that for Shields says a lot to me about the availability of funds.

[sontensei]

What happened to Shields money? They offered 20 million a year.

 

They offered 80 mill on a 4 year contract, not PER year though, evidently with a ton of deferments. I think I remember seeing somewhere the first year salary was well under 10. It was supposedly EXTREMELY backloaded.

 

They'll get as creative as they can obviously, but the fact they had to do that for Shields says a lot to me about the availability of funds.

 

renovations are expensive and prohibitive to the payroll ? i could see that, but i doubt they dont get one of the top SP in the offseason.

 

Honestly i like the idea of trading for a young guy who is a 3 now with 1 potential thats a good way to go, but also i would like to see a guy like price..

 

who do you think the CF could potentially be? i hope not fowler, Span?

[davell]

What happened to Shields money? They offered 20 million a year.

 

They offered 80 mill on a 4 year contract, not PER year though, evidently with a ton of deferments. I think I remember seeing somewhere the first year salary was well under 10. It was supposedly EXTREMELY backloaded.

 

They'll get as creative as they can obviously, but the fact they had to do that for Shields says a lot to me about the availability of funds.

 

They offered 3/60 with a vesting for a 4th that kept it under 80, basically a smaller version of the Hamels deal that potentially ended when the pitcher is 36 rather than 35. Later reports from CSN would add that there was significant deferred money, but I'm not seeing a number.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/cubs-late-pursuit-of-shields-was-telling-020915

 

Aside: Rosenthal also mentions that length of contract is a significant factor for the Cubs and 2016 FA pitchers in that piece, as it should be.

 

I honestly have no idea where I saw the first year salary, I seem to think it was going to be 7 mill. At no point have Mooney or Gordo brought up how the debt consolidation stuff affects longer versus shorter term deals if they're for the same money on a year for year basis. Based on some of their stuff, it DOES seem Hamels is a more palatable addition than a David Price, for example(even if they were both 23 per).

 

I see the logic behind wanting Hamels over one of the FA guys-but I'd much prefer the FA, while holding on to the prospects and using them to add something else.

 

But based on the payroll restrictions we're obviously constrained by, I see zero chance of adding Hamels now and even a Shark type in the offseason. Even with a decent playoff run, in my opinion.

 

Trading for Hamels now and trading him in the offseason is a fun idea(assuming we grab another TOR guy in FA).

[Guest]

Hot take: Hamels v. Hendricks performance for the remaining seasons of Hamels' deal('16-18) favors Hendricks, without taking salary into account.

 

It's Randy Wells all over again.

 

Hamels' top age-specifc comps on BR: Peavy, Drabek, Appier, Haren, Rijo

 

Number of 3+ win seasons combined from those comps after age 32: two

 

Aren't BR comps kinda worthless?

 

As far as prediction goes, yes. They have little predictive value.

[downsr30]

I really hope the Cubs don't ever go after Samardjiza again. I think he has good stuff at times but he seems to have quite a few real bad starts. Some pitchers have really good, good, and battle to get through 6 or 7.. I feel like I've seen Samardjiza's stat line be real ugly too many times.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

I really hope the Cubs don't ever go after Samardjiza again. I think he has good stuff at times but he seems to have quite a few real bad starts. Some pitchers have really good, good, and battle to get through 6 or 7.. I feel like I've seen Samardjiza's stat line be real ugly too many times.

 

I don't have much interest in bringing back Samardzija but I do not like that line of reasoning to justify it. His numbers are his numbers. What you think you see at the end of any one game is not meaningful.

[downsr30]

I think Samardjiza's stuff is good, but I don't know if he's learned how to use it or will learn how to use it. He doesn't strike me as a big game pitcher. When I see a guy like Scherzer, Kershaw, Felix Hernandez or Cueto, I can say with a good amount of confidence they are going to have a good or great game on a regular basis. When I see Samardjiza's name for probable starters, the same confidence isn't instilled in me - but that could also just be my perception.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[downsr30]

I heard Steve Phillips the other day on the Kaplan show say when he was GM of the Mets his owner told him that making the playoffs was $30 million swing of profit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tfarks]

As a divisional winner. But with a 1-game playoff, they're no lock for $.

[downsr30]

True..

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk