Christian Yelich

[toonsterwu]

I'd have my doubts that would do it for Yelich.

 

Sure sounds like they aren't intending on moving Yelich, based off uh ... that article that came out the other day. It's Stanton, Gordon, and then uh ... I forgot who their 3rd goal to move was.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'd have my doubts that would do it for Yelich.

 

That's Javier Baez, not Theodore Baez.

[toonsterwu]

I'd have my doubts that would do it for Yelich.

 

That's Javier Baez, not Theodore Baez.

 

huh?

 

Okay, let me phrase it in another way. I'm not sure Baez gets them to budge the needle that much because they are looking to rebuild from the ground up, and that new front office staff has focused on collecting positional assets, so I'm not sure Alzolay necessarily budges the needle when they are in full-rebuild mode. Ademan is too far away to have too much value, but yes, I could see them be quite intrigued with Ademan.

 

If we're talking some generic value thing, yeah sure, that should be close, but that specific trade, I'm just not sure I buy the Marlins jumping on that.

 

I'm not sure we're a match if they move Yelich, and I'm not sure they move Yelich anyways, much as I'd like it.

[davell]

Prado is the 3rd guy they want to move.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm saying that stated package is more than enough for Yelich, and not a good deal for the Cubs to make.

[toonsterwu]

I'm saying that stated package is more than enough for Yelich, and not a good deal for the Cubs to make.

 

Ok. And I'm saying I don't think the Marlins make that deal.

 

Would you make that deal if you are the Marlins and in a total rebuild ... and Yelich was your prime candidate to get multiple quality young assets to rebuild with? Jeter/Sherman have basically said they are fine taking time. A pop-up arm in Alzolay who, I like a lot, but has enough questions on his secondary pitches. A middle infielder, however promising, 3-4 years away, at best and doesn't project for much power. A "proto-type" in de la Cruz that hasn't pitched much. And Baez ... who is going to start increasing in costs sooner than later. I think they can do better than that in this market, in terms of long term building, if they opted to move Yelich.

 

I'm not debating the value or whether or not it's good for the Cubs. As I noted ... I have my doubts that would do it for Yelich.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm saying that stated package is more than enough for Yelich, and not a good deal for the Cubs to make.

 

Ok. And I'm saying I don't think the Marlins make that deal.

 

Would you make that deal if you are the Marlins and in a total rebuild ... and Yelich was your prime candidate to get multiple quality young assets to rebuild with? Jeter/Sherman have basically said they are fine taking time. A pop-up arm in Alzolay who, I like a lot, but has enough questions on his secondary pitches. A middle infielder, however promising, 3-4 years away, at best and doesn't project for much power. A "proto-type" in de la Cruz that hasn't pitched much. And Baez ... who is going to start increasing in costs sooner than later. I think they can do better than that in this market, in terms of long term building, if they opted to move Yelich.

 

I'm not debating the value or whether or not it's good for the Cubs. As I noted ... I have my doubts that would do it for Yelich.

 

I don't think any deal for Yelich they could make would get them a better player and talent than 4 years of Baez, never mind also a guy with LaStella's bat, multiple quality prospect arms, and a decent low level infield prospect.

[Cubswin11]

Go get him, Theo

 

https://twitter.com/christianyelich/status/939559584959676416

[davell]

I just don't see them moving him. And if they did, there's teams out there with a much larger need and likely to offer a lot more anyway.

 

Still, I think they've got to keep him and maybe even Ozuna for now, to keep whatever tiny amount of attendance they'll have, from plummeting even further.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Still, I think they've got to keep him and maybe even Ozuna for now, to keep whatever tiny amount of attendance they'll have, from plummeting even further.

 

The initial report is that they were going to drop payroll to 95 million, with Castro and without Gordon and Stanton they're still 10-15 million away depending on exact arb amounts. There were reports that came after that said they wanted to drop to 75 million too.

 

Castro is basically the only player outside of Yelich and Ozuna who makes real money and isn't underwater on the contract. If that rumor of 75 million is at all accurate, it seems real likely they'd need to take Ozuna and/or Yelich and try to package them with another undesirable contract(Ziegler, Volquez, Tazawa, Chen).

[davell]

I don't think it'd take moving a guy like Yelich or Ozuna to get teams to bite on Ziegler or Tazawa anyway. You could pair them with a comp pick or a relatively solid prospect and get out from underneath those one year deals. Same with Volquez, its been done before. Arroyo and Toussaint for basically nothing.

 

Someone may be willing to pay 2/10 on Prado's deal too. Realistically, I can see them trading Starlin and one of Ziegler or Tazawa together and get out from close to 20M for nothing.

 

Then, if they need to go further, package Volquez with their comp pick and maybe a top 10 in their system guy, to save another 13.

 

Again, they don't exactly appear to be bright, but they've got options to lower their payroll considerably still, without touching Yelich or Ozuna. Who they'll need to try and at least put a few people in the seats. Going down another full on Loria style rebuild could cost them more than they want to try, with their fan situation being precarious, to say the least.

[davell]

I just read a report that said they've promised investors they'll get down to 55 million. If that's true, then they've got no choice but to deal Yelich and Ozuna basically. What a shitshow.

[Clem Fandango]

I just read a report that said they've promised investors they'll get down to 55 million. If that's true, then they've got no choice but to deal Yelich and Ozuna basically. What a horsefeathers.

 

Lol. Finally rid themselves of a notoriously stingy and shitty owner prone to spontaneous fire sales.

 

New owners immediately have a fire sale.

 

Badluckbrian.jpg

[davell]

I just read a report that said they've promised investors they'll get down to 55 million. If that's true, then they've got no choice but to deal Yelich and Ozuna basically. What a horsefeathers.

 

Lol. Finally rid themselves of a notoriously stingy and horsefeathers owner prone to spontaneous fire sales.

 

New owners immediately have a fire sale.

 

Badluckbrian.jpg

 

Jeter only owns like 4% of the team too. They're trotting him out there, trying to capitalize on the goodwill he's earned, to deflect this horsefeathers. Hoping Jeter can absorb the PR hit for them lol.

[Cubswin11]

I just read a report that said they've promised investors they'll get down to 55 million. If that's true, then they've got no choice but to deal Yelich and Ozuna basically. What a horsefeathers.

That’s wild if true. It’s hard for me to see MLB allowing it (since they have rules in place that require certain liquidity/equity to debt ratios and don’t allow just any financing arraignments) but you almost have to think the new owners put some sort of unconventional financing together and they have some heavy debt service theses first few years or a balloon payment due in a few years or something that’s driving this outside your typical cheap ownership group.

[SouthSideRyan]

I just read a report that said they've promised investors they'll get down to 55 million. If that's true, then they've got no choice but to deal Yelich and Ozuna basically. What a horsefeathers.

That’s wild if true. It’s hard for me to see MLB allowing it (since they have rules in place that require certain liquidity/equity to debt ratios and don’t allow just any financing arraignments) but you almost have to think the new owners put some sort of unconventional financing together and they have some heavy debt service theses first few years or a balloon payment due in a few years or something that’s driving this outside your typical cheap ownership group.

 

It's hard for you to see MLB owners allowing 1 of of 30 franchises to spend no money and in-turn lowering the total expenditure on player salaries? Sounds like their dream owner to me. Loria finished off the Expos and was rewarded for it with the Marlins with help from an interest-free loan from MLB.

 

ETA: I don't remember the specs on the debt/equity rules, but never have I heard it alluded to as a reason a team can't lower their payroll, and ultimately their made up rules that MLB can enforce however they want.

[toonsterwu]

Yeah, that 55 million number has been out there awhile, but I don't know if people ever believed that it was something that they had to achieve.

 

If it is ... you can sorta see a path for them to chop off roughly another 50 million, but it's going to be a lot of giveaways. I think Chen is the most unlikely to be moved, but I guess if they can plop off 10 million or so of his deal, who knows.

 

If not Chen -

 

Starlin Castro - He's gotta go. That'd be 10 million give or take. There should be enough teams willing to take on his 2 years and an option.

 

Ziegler/Tazawa - Combined 16 million (9/7). Their histories makes you think some team might take a shot if they weren't giving up much.

 

Those are, probably, the easy moves. Not absolutely certain that other teams would eat the money on the relievers, but I gotta think someone might ponder it for one year, or at least, huge chunks of it. They'd still have to chop off 25 million, give or take.

 

Then comes the hard part - 25 million to 30 million to chop off.

 

I still believe the easiest route would be packaging Justin Bour with either Prado or Volquez and seeing if someone might bite. 3 years of Bour control, 1 to 2 at reasonable prices, while getting lefty power? Seems a great fit for say ... Fenway. The Marlins have a ready replacement in Garrett Cooper. They'd have to find something to package with the remaining bad deal, probably Prado, but if you told a team that their only shot at getting Ozuna was paying Prado for 2 years ... I wonder if a team would bite. Heck, with Dustin Pedroia out, I still wonder about a Bour/Prado package to Boston (granted, they have better 2nd base stopgap options than Prado, who might not be able to handle 2nd anymore).

 

55 million is doable, but they'll be essentially left with Yelich and Realmuto, and at that point, they are better off trying to move both of those guys for the best prospect packages possible and slicing it even further.

[Cubswin11]

I just read a report that said they've promised investors they'll get down to 55 million. If that's true, then they've got no choice but to deal Yelich and Ozuna basically. What a horsefeathers.

That’s wild if true. It’s hard for me to see MLB allowing it (since they have rules in place that require certain liquidity/equity to debt ratios and don’t allow just any financing arraignments) but you almost have to think the new owners put some sort of unconventional financing together and they have some heavy debt service theses first few years or a balloon payment due in a few years or something that’s driving this outside your typical cheap ownership group.

 

It's hard for you to see MLB owners allowing 1 of of 30 franchises to spend no money and in-turn lowering the total expenditure on player salaries? Sounds like their dream owner to me. Loria finished off the Expos and was rewarded for it with the Marlins with help from an interest-free loan from MLB.

 

ETA: I don't remember the specs on the debt/equity rules, but never have I heard it alluded to as a reason a team can't lower their payroll, and ultimately their made up rules that MLB can enforce however they want.

No I don’t find it hard to believe MLB is fine with the lowering of payroll. I was just saying if the $55 million number was true they are trying to get to that, that seems so extreme that maybe they were doing it as a function of their financing package they used to buy the team and it wasn’t purely based on just trying to run at bare bones and turn as much profit as possible.

[toonsterwu]

From what I recall of the articles several months ago, it essentially was something like this -

 

trade Stanton, and we'll try to cut down to 55 million.

 

Don't trade Stanton, and we'll stick around 85 million.

 

Essentially, it sounded like, to me, if Stanton's gone, it's a "closing" sale and that they might as well as just get everything bad out of the way and retool the way they want to. Thus, instead of Stanton this year, Yelich next year, Realmuto and so forth ... might as well just burn it all now and take the hit now, which ... to some extent ... makes sense.

[SouthSideRyan]

That’s wild if true. It’s hard for me to see MLB allowing it (since they have rules in place that require certain liquidity/equity to debt ratios and don’t allow just any financing arraignments) but you almost have to think the new owners put some sort of unconventional financing together and they have some heavy debt service theses first few years or a balloon payment due in a few years or something that’s driving this outside your typical cheap ownership group.

 

It's hard for you to see MLB owners allowing 1 of of 30 franchises to spend no money and in-turn lowering the total expenditure on player salaries? Sounds like their dream owner to me. Loria finished off the Expos and was rewarded for it with the Marlins with help from an interest-free loan from MLB.

 

ETA: I don't remember the specs on the debt/equity rules, but never have I heard it alluded to as a reason a team can't lower their payroll, and ultimately their made up rules that MLB can enforce however they want.

No I don’t find it hard to believe MLB is fine with the lowering of payroll. I was just saying if the $55 million number was true they are trying to get to that, that seems so extreme that maybe they were doing it as a function of their financing package they used to buy the team and it wasn’t purely based on just trying to run at bare bones and turn as much profit as possible.

 

Jim Crane had no money so he lowered the Astros payroll to an embarrassing level on Opening Day 2013, only to trade off the meager assets they had during the season to save any more money. If in order to afford the team they have to lower payroll, I don't see how MLB loses, barring a Frank McCourt situation which had a lot more to do with his converting the franchise assets into personal assets to the point that he couldn't meet payroll.

[Cubswin11]

 

It's hard for you to see MLB owners allowing 1 of of 30 franchises to spend no money and in-turn lowering the total expenditure on player salaries? Sounds like their dream owner to me. Loria finished off the Expos and was rewarded for it with the Marlins with help from an interest-free loan from MLB.

 

ETA: I don't remember the specs on the debt/equity rules, but never have I heard it alluded to as a reason a team can't lower their payroll, and ultimately their made up rules that MLB can enforce however they want.

No I don’t find it hard to believe MLB is fine with the lowering of payroll. I was just saying if the $55 million number was true they are trying to get to that, that seems so extreme that maybe they were doing it as a function of their financing package they used to buy the team and it wasn’t purely based on just trying to run at bare bones and turn as much profit as possible.

 

Jim Crane had no money so he lowered the Astros payroll to an embarrassing level on Opening Day 2013, only to trade off the meager assets they had during the season to save any more money. If in order to afford the team they have to lower payroll, I don't see how MLB loses, barring a Frank McCourt situation which had a lot more to do with his converting the franchise assets into personal assets to the point that he couldn't meet payroll.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing or even something MLB should step in on, they obviously know of and approved what financing arraignments were made to buy the team and would know of the ramifications if it was unconventional. I was just making a comment/observation that with such an extreme reduction of payroll I wondered if it was something brought on by a unique financing arraignment that maybe didn’t fit MLB’s rules (which we know exist but like you said may not be absolute and certainly can be changed under the right circumstances) but was allowed and with whatever financing package was arraigned it required such a reduction to meet investor/debt obligations.

[17 Seconds]

think of how easily this could be a reality one year from now

 

Yelich

Bryant

Harper

Rizzo

Contreras

Schwarber

Baez

Russell

[UMFan83]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Tryptamine]

God I want Yelich and then Harper on this team. That line up would be an absolute monster. Throw Happ,Almora,Alzolay and Ademan at them.

[David]

go get him, theo