The 2006 Thread, Current topic: Center Field

[series65cubsfan]

If it's a length of contract issue, then why not go 50-55 million for for 5 years. Yes, towards the end you'll most likely see a drop off in production, however, you will get 10 million a year for the best portion of the contract.

[USSoccer]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

 

I think you are right, but didn't the poll results say we have to go less years?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If it's a length of contract issue, then why not go 50-55 million for for 5 years. Yes, towards the end you'll most likely see a drop off in production, however, you will get 10 million a year for the best portion of the contract.

 

Why would he accept 5/50 when he's likely to get 4/48 from someone else?

[Mizzou]

Which teams are expected to be major players in the Giles sweepstakes?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Which teams are expected to be major players in the Giles sweepstakes?

 

San Diego, LA, Anaheim, St. Louis and Boston have been mentioned by the media.

 

EDIT: Yes, Anaheim. I still call them that.

[RynoRules]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

 

I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60.

 

Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that.

 

I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

Edited October 19, 2005 by RynoRules

[USSoccer]

If it's a length of contract issue, then why not go 50-55 million for for 5 years. Yes, towards the end you'll most likely see a drop off in production, however, you will get 10 million a year for the best portion of the contract.

 

Why would he accept 5/50 when he's likely to get 4/48 from someone else?

 

How about 3/46 with a player option for a 4th at $10m?

[Tim]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

 

I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60.

 

Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that.

 

I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

And when he signs the 4 yr deal with St. Louis this board will erupt like never before.

[USSoccer]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

 

I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60.

 

Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that.

 

I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

And when he signs the 4 yr deal with St. Louis this board will erupt like never before.

 

Even bigger than the Choi thread? :D

[Tim]

Okay, I'll erupt on this board like I never have before. :D

[USSoccer]

Okay, I'll erupt on this board like I never have before. :D

 

See, that would be worth Premium to see. Would Modzilla have to calm you down? Cause that would be ironic. :P

 

 

Seriously, though, if St Louis got seriously into the Giles bidding, I can really see Hendry making a very strong push to keep Giles from St Louis. There's going to be a lot of pressure on Hendry to improve when compared to the Cards, given the way they've run away with the Central the past 2 seasons. So, maybe the Cards getting involved would end up being a good thing, because it would force Hendry to get into a bidding war. Kind of like what happened when St Louis was rumored to be close to signing Moises Alou in 2002.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that.

 

I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

 

The deal I'd offer him is a 4/50 deal with a 5th year option of 10 million with a 2 million buy-out. He would be guaranteed 52 million over four years or 60 if the Cubs pick up the last year.

 

I think that is about 4 million more than anyone else would gurantee him and should be enough to lure him away from other suitors.

 

I also wouldn't [expletive] foot around with it either. I'd make the offer, tell him that it's the best we can do. I'd also tell him that it was dependent on us not spending the money elsewhere. Hopefully, he'd realize it was better than anything else, sign quickly and then the Cubs would have plenty of time to make decisions on SS, 2b, bullpen, whatever.

[MPrior]

Well, the poll results say fewer years, and yet it seems to me that the consensus (or as close to it as we've got) is that it will take at least 4 years to get him to consider. Does this mean that the people who voted for fewer years think he's not worth offering 4 years, and would be willing to see him sign elsewhere rather than offering it, or do you (the people who voted for fewer years) think that three years could get him? I think this a pretty important distinction.

 

I guess a simpler way to put it is: if Giles won't sign for 3 years at almost any price, would you be willing to go to 4 years if you think it'd land him?

 

I'm personally of the school of thought that we should pay Giles pretty much whatever it takes. Look at it this way: the Cubs' biggest problem as a team is lack of OBP, and their biggest hole is RF. There just happens to be a RF on the market with excellent OBP (not to mention an appreciable amount of power), and our biggest asset this offseason is the amount of money we have to spend. It seems to me to be a no-brainer.

 

My guess is that something along the lines of 4/52 should probably do it, if he's going to be pried off the west coast at all.

[BigbadB]

[expletive] footing is the key. The Cubs have to show interest on day 1. They can't get in the bidding just so "St. Louis doesn't get him". They can't go out there with the attitude they just need a better offseason than St. Louis. They have to go hard after the players that can really help this team and don't look behind them. They have the money to do it, so just do it.

[Roast]

After thinking about it, I realized that More people did vote for Four years. Because there was more than one option for four years. Adding the four year options together you have more than the "less years" option.

 

I am going to set up a new poll. Three or four years. I do not believe its unfair. Those who beleive 3 years is the way to go, simply vote that way again.

[USSoccer]

[expletive] footing is the key. The Cubs have to show interest on day 1. They can't get in the bidding just so "St. Louis doesn't get him". They can't go out there with the attitude they just need a better offseason than St. Louis. They have to go hard after the players that can really help this team and don't look behind them. They have the money to do it, so just do it.

 

No, BBB, I know they can't just try and outddo St Louis, but I was trying to make a point that it might be, realistically, one of the things that kicks Hendry into paying market value for the one impact player in this years crop.

[BigbadB]

[expletive] footing is the key. The Cubs have to show interest on day 1. They can't get in the bidding just so "St. Louis doesn't get him". They can't go out there with the attitude they just need a better offseason than St. Louis. They have to go hard after the players that can really help this team and don't look behind them. They have the money to do it, so just do it.

 

No, BBB, I know they can't just try and outddo St Louis, but I was trying to make a point that it might be, realistically, one of the things that kicks Hendry into paying market value for the one impact player in this years crop.

 

Well, wouldn't it be somewhat nice if there was a small leak or two to the baseball press gods that the Cubs were at least slightly, remotely, considerably and minutely interested in one, Brian Giles?

 

Why do I have to read that all these other teams are already expressing interest in taking him away from home? It's probably considered tampering to even talk to him at this point, but I see nothing wrong with posturing.

[USSoccer]

[expletive] footing is the key. The Cubs have to show interest on day 1. They can't get in the bidding just so "St. Louis doesn't get him". They can't go out there with the attitude they just need a better offseason than St. Louis. They have to go hard after the players that can really help this team and don't look behind them. They have the money to do it, so just do it.

 

No, BBB, I know they can't just try and outddo St Louis, but I was trying to make a point that it might be, realistically, one of the things that kicks Hendry into paying market value for the one impact player in this years crop.

 

Well, wouldn't it be somewhat nice if there was a small leak or two to the baseball press gods that the Cubs were at least slightly, remotely, considerably and minutely interested in one, Brian Giles?

 

Why do I have to read that all these other teams are already expressing interest in taking him away from home? It's probably considered tampering to even talk to him at this point, but I see nothing wrong with posturing.

 

Maybe Bruce Miles should help us out and write a nice Giles to teh Cubs? piece :D

[Exile on Waveland]

Okay, I'll erupt on this board like I never have before. :D

 

You won't be the only one. I'm already upset at the apparent ambivalence towards Giles. If he stays at home in SD or the west coast or signs cheap to play with his brother in Atlanta it's one thing. But if he goes to the Cardinals I'm gonna be super-upset -- unless the Cubs trot out Manny Ramirez, Bobby Abreu or Adam Dunn.

 

The Cubs can NOT allow Giles to go to St. Louis. The Cubs have more money to begin with, more money to spend and just as big a need at Giles' position. It's easy to say you can never overpay for someone, but this is the point where they need to. They made their bed, now they may have to overpay. If Giles would rather play for the Cardinals, offer him more money (Yankee-style) and make sure he chooses the Cubs.

[badger1679666666]

[expletive] footing is the key. The Cubs have to show interest on day 1. They can't get in the bidding just so "St. Louis doesn't get him". They can't go out there with the attitude they just need a better offseason than St. Louis. They have to go hard after the players that can really help this team and don't look behind them. They have the money to do it, so just do it.

 

No, BBB, I know they can't just try and outddo St Louis, but I was trying to make a point that it might be, realistically, one of the things that kicks Hendry into paying market value for the one impact player in this years crop.

 

Well, wouldn't it be somewhat nice if there was a small leak or two to the baseball press gods that the Cubs were at least slightly, remotely, considerably and minutely interested in one, Brian Giles?

 

Why do I have to read that all these other teams are already expressing interest in taking him away from home? It's probably considered tampering to even talk to him at this point, but I see nothing wrong with posturing.

 

Bruce? Please?

[RynoRules]

 

Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that.

 

I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

 

The deal I'd offer him is a 4/50 deal with a 5th year option of 10 million with a 2 million buy-out. He would be guaranteed 52 million over four years or 60 if the Cubs pick up the last year.

 

I think that is about 4 million more than anyone else would gurantee him and should be enough to lure him away from other suitors.

 

I also wouldn't [expletive] foot around with it either. I'd make the offer, tell him that it's the best we can do. I'd also tell him that it was dependent on us not spending the money elsewhere. Hopefully, he'd realize it was better than anything else, sign quickly and then the Cubs would have plenty of time to make decisions on SS, 2b, bullpen, whatever.

 

I guess I could live w/ four guaranteed. Its the fifth year tha makes me nervous. But so long as its an opton, it makes more sense.

 

And the fact that this bd. will erupt if the Cards overpay to get him is not a reason to sign Giles. If we offer something in Vance's range - 4 yrs , 50 mill w/ an option for a fifth year, and the Cards beat that offer, than so be it.

[CubfaninCA]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

 

I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60.

 

Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that.

 

I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

 

His family's in SD though and the Cubs are coming off a subpar season. They'll have to do some major wooing, and most likely overpay, which makes signing Giles quite a longshot.

[Exile on Waveland]

And the fact that this bd. will erupt if the Cards overpay to get him is not a reason to sign Giles.

 

No, but the fact it would pretty much clinch the division for them is reason to sign him.

 

(Assuming my previous exception of Ramirez, Abreu or Dunn playing in the OF for the Cubs, Giles to the Cards cements them as the best team in the NL, if not baseball)

[CubinNY]

And the fact that this bd. will erupt if the Cards overpay to get him is not a reason to sign Giles.

 

No, but the fact it would pretty much clinch the division for them is reason to sign him.

 

(Assuming my previous exception of Ramirez, Abreu or Dunn playing in the OF for the Cubs, Giles to the Cards cements them as the best team in the NL, if not baseball)

 

I don't know about that, but they would be one helluva offensive force in the NL. I'm still waiting for the Cards pitching to come back to earth. It looks like I'm wrong but I don't fear that staff.

[Exile on Waveland]

And the fact that this bd. will erupt if the Cards overpay to get him is not a reason to sign Giles.

 

No, but the fact it would pretty much clinch the division for them is reason to sign him.

 

(Assuming my previous exception of Ramirez, Abreu or Dunn playing in the OF for the Cubs, Giles to the Cards cements them as the best team in the NL, if not baseball)

 

I don't know about that, but they would be one helluva offensive force in the NL. I'm still waiting for the Cards pitching to come back to earth. It looks like I'm wrong but I don't fear that staff.

 

Yeah, I keep waiting for that, too, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

 

Listen, the Cards are already the best team in the NL, and especially the NL Central. (They may lose in the NLCS, but the regular season proves the best team). If they then sign the best offensive player on the market, all while preventing another divisional team from improving their area of need, then, yeah, barring a rash of injuries, they're gonna win the NL Central again. But, probably the only way they don't win again next year is if the Cubs do get a big stud for RF or, of course, the injury thing.