2015/16 offseason

[UK1679666180]

Damn, I wish Edwin's contract was off the books this year.

[Exile on Waveland]

Daniel Murphy or bust. The Cubs can use a good bigot.

 

you're kidding yourself if you don't think that they already have at least one or two in there

 

Yeah ... professional athletes? I'm guessing it'd be lucky if the anti-gay animus wasn't over half.

[Gilby]

Oh yeah there are bigots on the team I'm sure, but I like that our best players - Rizzo, Bryant, Arrieta, etc - don't seem to throw religion in everyone's face every chance they get. I guess Starlin does, but he does it with cool hashtags.

[TMan92]

I guess I should have prefaced with "blatant"

[Exile on Waveland]

I guess I should have prefaced with "blatant"

 

Yeah, honestly, I think that's the best one can hope for as a fan, at this point.

[BigSlick]

Damn, I wish Edwin's contract was off the books this year.

Christ. That really was Epstein-Hoyer's worst move to this point.

 

Hasn't been a crippling move, but it's still hurting the team.

[TMan92]

Damn, I wish Edwin's contract was off the books this year.

Christ. That really was Epstein-Hoyer's worst move to this point.

 

Hasn't been a crippling move, but it's still hurting the team.

 

I worked with a GF and now wife of one of the Nationals and nobody on their team could believe the Cubs spent that much money on him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Damn, I wish Edwin's contract was off the books this year.

Christ. That really was Epstein-Hoyer's worst move to this point.

 

Hasn't been a crippling move, but it's still hurting the team.

 

I worked with a GF and now wife of one of the Nationals and nobody on their team could believe the Cubs spent that much money on him.

 

Why?

[XZero771679666304]

Damn, I wish Edwin's contract was off the books this year.

Christ. That really was Epstein-Hoyer's worst move to this point.

 

Hasn't been a crippling move, but it's still hurting the team.

 

I worked with a GF and now wife of one of the Nationals and nobody on their team could believe the Cubs spent that much money on him.

 

Why?

 

 

Yeah, given his performance in the years preceding, it was pretty fair market value, but not really over.

[Backtobanks]

Damn, I wish Edwin's contract was off the books this year.

Christ. That really was Epstein-Hoyer's worst move to this point.

 

Hasn't been a crippling move, but it's still hurting the team.

 

I worked with a GF and now wife of one of the Nationals and nobody on their team could believe the Cubs spent that much money on him.

 

Why?

 

 

Yeah, given his performance in the years preceding, it was pretty fair market value, but not really over.

 

The money per year wasn't outrageous, but the number of years was. Jackson spent his whole career on 1 or 2 year contracts until he came to the Cubs.

[Sammy Sofa]

The money per year wasn't outrageous, but the number of years was. Jackson spent his whole career on 1 or 2 year contracts until he came to the Cubs.

 

So what? The lengths of his previous contracts had nothing to do with how well he did as a pitcher.

 

And before you jump to your usual position, no I'm not trying to defend it as somehow working out; it turned out to be a terrible signing. But at the time there was little indicate that the Cubs weren't likely to get relative value to the rather modest deal they signed him to.

 

And off of that, what the hell accounts for the drastic difference in his season value between Fangraphs and BR for his 2013 and 2014 seasons? Fangraphs has him at a 2.0 WAR (and 0.5 in 2014) and BR has him at -1.3 (and -2.3 the next year). FG seems WAY off here.

[Guest]

The money per year wasn't outrageous, but the number of years was. Jackson spent his whole career on 1 or 2 year contracts until he came to the Cubs.

 

So what? The lengths of his previous contracts had nothing to do with how well he did as a pitcher.

 

And before you jump to your usual position, no I'm not trying to defend it as somehow working out; it turned out to be a terrible signing. But at the time there was little indicate that the Cubs weren't likely to get relative value to the rather modest deal they signed him to.

 

And off of that, what the hell accounts for the drastic difference in his season value between Fangraphs and BR for his 2013 and 2014 seasons? Fangraphs has him at a 2.0 WAR (and 0.5 in 2014) and BR has him at -1.3 (and -2.3 the next year). FG seems WAY off here.

I believe FG is more peripheral based whereas BR is more outcome based. EJ is just one of those guys who has always fell short of his peripherals.

[Backtobanks]

The money per year wasn't outrageous, but the number of years was. Jackson spent his whole career on 1 or 2 year contracts until he came to the Cubs.

 

So what? The lengths of his previous contracts had nothing to do with how well he did as a pitcher.

 

And before you jump to your usual position, no I'm not trying to defend it as somehow working out; it turned out to be a terrible signing. But at the time there was little indicate that the Cubs weren't likely to get relative value to the rather modest deal they signed him to.

 

And off of that, what the hell accounts for the drastic difference in his season value between Fangraphs and BR for his 2013 and 2014 seasons? Fangraphs has him at a 2.0 WAR (and 0.5 in 2014) and BR has him at -1.3 (and -2.3 the next year). FG seems WAY off here.

 

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

[Guest]

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

I'm guessing you don't have a source for that bs.

[davell]

Actually, I'm almost positive the Rangers were at 4/48 on him is what's funny.

[jersey cubs fan]

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

I'm guessing you don't have a source for that bs.

Jim hendry is still in baseball and has plenty of sources.

[Sammy Sofa]

The money per year wasn't outrageous, but the number of years was. Jackson spent his whole career on 1 or 2 year contracts until he came to the Cubs.

 

So what? The lengths of his previous contracts had nothing to do with how well he did as a pitcher.

 

And before you jump to your usual position, no I'm not trying to defend it as somehow working out; it turned out to be a terrible signing. But at the time there was little indicate that the Cubs weren't likely to get relative value to the rather modest deal they signed him to.

 

And off of that, what the hell accounts for the drastic difference in his season value between Fangraphs and BR for his 2013 and 2014 seasons? Fangraphs has him at a 2.0 WAR (and 0.5 in 2014) and BR has him at -1.3 (and -2.3 the next year). FG seems WAY off here.

 

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

 

But they wanted to lock him up for longer based on his success to that point. Again, there was little reason to assume he was just going to topple off of a cliff and never recover, so why bother with only a 1 or 2-year deal? Everything to that point pointed it to being a reasonable deal. They were trying to help stabilize the starting rotation both that season and for the long term.

[Clem Fandango]

Jackson spent his whole career on 1 or 2 year contracts until he came to the Cubs.

 

He was under arbitration before the Nats, which was a one year contract. Then he signed with the Cubs.

[TMan92]

It was total dollars and past performance that made no sense.

[Sammy Sofa]

Explain.

[Backtobanks]

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

I'm guessing you don't have a source for that bs.

Jim hendry is still in baseball and has plenty of sources.

 

When you have nothing to say, you can always bring up Jim Hendry.

[Guest]

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

I'm guessing you don't have a source for that bs.

Jim hendry is still in baseball and has plenty of sources.

 

When you have nothing to say, you can always bring up Jim Hendry.

So...source?

[jersey cubs fan]

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

I'm guessing you don't have a source for that bs.

Jim hendry is still in baseball and has plenty of sources.

 

When you have nothing to say, you can always bring up Jim Hendry.

Hey, you logged in.

 

You waited until the Cubs were playoff hopes were diminished, but you logged in.

[ctcf]

Actually, I'm almost positive the Rangers were at 4/48 on him is what's funny.

 

While I can't find a year/dollar amount for the Rangers offer, they were certainly there until the end. There were, unsurprisingly, a number of teams in on him that year.

 

See: http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2012/12/19/3783680/mlb-rumors-edwin-jackson-padres-cubs-rangers

[Backtobanks]

The point is that nobody was offering Jackson a contract that ran 4 years except the Cubs. We could have offered him 2 years at $13 million per year and he would have still signed with the Cubs.

I'm guessing you don't have a source for that bs.

Jim hendry is still in baseball and has plenty of sources.

 

When you have nothing to say, you can always bring up Jim Hendry.

Hey, you logged in.

 

You waited until the Cubs were playoff hopes were diminished, but you logged in.

 

I've been logged in and posting for weeks now. Thanks for noticing.