St. Louis Post-Dispatch Thinks Cubs Will Bid for Giles

[da bears]

I'm sorry, but if the Cubs trade Zambrano, I'm done.

Seconded. There's absolutely no player in baseball I would trade Z for apart from maybe Pujols and we all know the Cards wouldn't make that deal.

Cabrera is just about the only player I'd accept back for Z in a trade.

 

Yeah, I think the guys who I would take in a trade for Z could be counted on one hand.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm sorry, but if the Cubs trade Zambrano, I'm done.

Seconded. There's absolutely no player in baseball I would trade Z for apart from maybe Pujols and we all know the Cards wouldn't make that deal.

Cabrera is just about the only player I'd accept back for Z in a trade.

 

You wouldn't take Castillo too? :D

 

I take it no one would accept 2 very good players for Z then. What if the Mets ( sign Furcal) then trade Reyes and Cameron to the Cubs for Z and Hendry thinks that would be the answer for the leadoff situation. I'm not suggesting this but I could see it happening. It closes 2 holes while opening a huge hole.

[da bears]

I'm sorry, but if the Cubs trade Zambrano, I'm done.

Seconded. There's absolutely no player in baseball I would trade Z for apart from maybe Pujols and we all know the Cards wouldn't make that deal.

Cabrera is just about the only player I'd accept back for Z in a trade.

 

You wouldn't take Castillo too? :D

 

I take it no one would accept 2 very good players for Z then. What if the Mets ( sign Furcal) then trade Reyes and Cameron to the Cubs for Z and Hendry thinks that would be the answer for the leadoff situation. I'm not suggesting this but I could see it happening. It closes 2 holes while opening a huge hole.

 

Well if Hendry does that, then it will just go down as yet another stupid trade in Cubs history.

[1908]

I'm sorry, but if the Cubs trade Zambrano, I'm done.

Seconded. There's absolutely no player in baseball I would trade Z for apart from maybe Pujols and we all know the Cards wouldn't make that deal.

Cabrera is just about the only player I'd accept back for Z in a trade.

 

You wouldn't take Castillo too? :D

 

I take it no one would accept 2 very good players for Z then. What if the Mets ( sign Furcal) then trade Reyes and Cameron to the Cubs for Z and Hendry thinks that would be the answer for the leadoff situation. I'm not suggesting this but I could see it happening. It closes 2 holes while opening a huge hole.

I think it's almost impossible to get equal value back for Z, and that's the only way I'd trade him. So I'd say no to two or three good to very good players.

[USSoccer]

I'm sorry, but if the Cubs trade Zambrano, I'm done.

Seconded. There's absolutely no player in baseball I would trade Z for apart from maybe Pujols and we all know the Cards wouldn't make that deal.

Cabrera is just about the only player I'd accept back for Z in a trade.

 

You wouldn't take Castillo too? :D

 

I take it no one would accept 2 very good players for Z then. What if the Mets ( sign Furcal) then trade Reyes and Cameron to the Cubs for Z and Hendry thinks that would be the answer for the leadoff situation. I'm not suggesting this but I could see it happening. It closes 2 holes while opening a huge hole.

 

There's no guarantee that Cameron will come back okay from his head injury. Last reports had him still suffering random vertigo. Also, Z is worth FAR more than Reyes and Cameron. We get hosed in that deal.

 

I don't see the logic in taking away from your one true strength to sort of plug a weakness. You aren't better off than when you started, so why not just trade from prospects or pay money via FA?

[da bears]

I'm sorry, but if the Cubs trade Zambrano, I'm done.

Seconded. There's absolutely no player in baseball I would trade Z for apart from maybe Pujols and we all know the Cards wouldn't make that deal.

Cabrera is just about the only player I'd accept back for Z in a trade.

 

You wouldn't take Castillo too? :D

 

I take it no one would accept 2 very good players for Z then. What if the Mets ( sign Furcal) then trade Reyes and Cameron to the Cubs for Z and Hendry thinks that would be the answer for the leadoff situation. I'm not suggesting this but I could see it happening. It closes 2 holes while opening a huge hole.

I think it's almost impossible to get equal value back for Z, and that's the only way I'd trade him. So I'd say no to two or three good to very good players.

 

Not to mention the backlash from fans for trading Z, who is a huge fan favorite. I know he's my favorite player on the team.

[CubinNY]

Don't know if this was mentioned already, but I think the Cubs will bid for Giles like they did for Beltran last year

 

Exactly

[da bears]

Don't know if this was mentioned already, but I think the Cubs will bid for Giles like they did for Beltran last year

 

Exactly

 

Unfortunately, I think you're right. ](*,)

[UBlink]

Hasn't Hendry already commented that Giles will be out of the Cubs price range?

 

That's not my idea of a savvy.

I think a little context is relevent. From everything I have read, it is the years on the contract (and thus bottom line total value), and not the per year value of the contract that scares Hendry.

 

At Giles age of 35, I think Hendry is very comfortable paying Giles top dollar for a 2-3 year contract (total value 30 million or so). I think he is very uncomfortable adding a 4th year or beyond (total value high 30s or low 40s).

 

I believe someone had posted the idea of a front-loaded contract for Giles, which, if Giles is open to it, is not a bad idea.

 

If you're planning on paying him $10 million a year, and you're comfortable giving him only three years at this time, how about something like this:

 

2006: $11.5 million

2007: $10 million

2008: $8.5 million

2009: Team OR Mutual option for $9 million

 

If Giles is interested in playing for a winner, you can sell the idea to him like this: The Cubs know how much they have to spend in 2006. They don't know how much they'll have available in 2008. This keeps them in a position to have a little extra money available then in case they need to add another piece to the puzzle to help maintain a winning team.

 

The option for 2009 should be a team or mutual option. If Giles is still somewhat productive and the market on outfielders is thin after 2008, then the Cubs can pick up that option. It's less than the annual average of the contract, but more than the final year of the deal. It's also more than he made this season.

 

If he wants more money, throw in some bonus incentives for 2007 and 2008.

 

There's no need to front-load the cash in the contract. What the Cubs need to do is front-load the expensing of the contract. Professional sports must be the only business left in America that operates on cash accounting. If we are stuck with cash accounting, then pay Giles $8.5 in year one, but also put $3 in a bank account and charge $11.5 to the 2006 budget. Then in 2008, take the money out of the bank, add it to $8.5 from the 2008 budget, and pay him his $11.5 in 2008. As long as the whole contract is guaranteed, you can expense the money over the course of the contract any way you like. Adding in interest costs and time value of money complicates the calculations slightly, but that's how it works. In the real world you don't set up a bank account, it's just part of your capital budget, but nobody measures the profitability of their business on a cash basis.

 

If the Cubs had expensed more of Maddux's contract in years 1 and 2 so that he only hit the budget this year for $5 million, nobody would be complaining about his contract.

[Proven Veteran]

Hasn't Hendry already commented that Giles will be out of the Cubs price range?

 

That's not my idea of a savvy.

I think a little context is relevent. From everything I have read, it is the years on the contract (and thus bottom line total value), and not the per year value of the contract that scares Hendry.

 

At Giles age of 35, I think Hendry is very comfortable paying Giles top dollar for a 2-3 year contract (total value 30 million or so). I think he is very uncomfortable adding a 4th year or beyond (total value high 30s or low 40s).

 

I believe someone had posted the idea of a front-loaded contract for Giles, which, if Giles is open to it, is not a bad idea.

 

If you're planning on paying him $10 million a year, and you're comfortable giving him only three years at this time, how about something like this:

 

2006: $11.5 million

2007: $10 million

2008: $8.5 million

2009: Team OR Mutual option for $9 million

 

If Giles is interested in playing for a winner, you can sell the idea to him like this: The Cubs know how much they have to spend in 2006. They don't know how much they'll have available in 2008. This keeps them in a position to have a little extra money available then in case they need to add another piece to the puzzle to help maintain a winning team.

 

The option for 2009 should be a team or mutual option. If Giles is still somewhat productive and the market on outfielders is thin after 2008, then the Cubs can pick up that option. It's less than the annual average of the contract, but more than the final year of the deal. It's also more than he made this season.

 

If he wants more money, throw in some bonus incentives for 2007 and 2008.

 

There's no need to front-load the cash in the contract. What the Cubs need to do is front-load the expensing of the contract. Professional sports must be the only business left in America that operates on cash accounting. If we are stuck with cash accounting, then pay Giles $8.5 in year one, but also put $3 in a bank account and charge $11.5 to the 2006 budget. Then in 2008, take the money out of the bank, add it to $8.5 from the 2008 budget, and pay him his $11.5 in 2008. As long as the whole contract is guaranteed, you can expense the money over the course of the contract any way you like. Adding in interest costs and time value of money complicates the calculations slightly, but that's how it works. In the real world you don't set up a bank account, it's just part of your capital budget, but nobody measures the profitability of their business on a cash basis.

 

If the Cubs had expensed more of Maddux's contract in years 1 and 2 so that he only hit the budget this year for $5 million, nobody would be complaining about his contract.

 

We have no idea how the cubs do their budget, do we?

[Careless]

Hoops, wouldn't trading Zambrano to the Phillies fly in the face of Hendry's desire to stockpile pitching?

 

And, are you just speculating on Zambrano going to the Phillies, or have you heard rumblings that it is seriously being discussed. What would be the Cubs rationale for making such a trade?

 

Did Hendry ever say he wanted to stockpile good pitching? :D

 

Do the Phillies have a 4th or 5th starter they can move to the Cubs? I see a Z and Hill for Abreu and that 4th or 5th guy.

For an older guy, you sure turned cynical in a big hurry :lol:

[illiniguy]

yesterday they resign Perez for two years. today they are rumored to be shopping Z. does this team want to rid itself of its pesky fan base that keeps it afloat?

[Backtobanks]

yesterday they resign Perez for two years. today they are rumored to be shopping Z. does this team want to rid itself of its pesky fan base that keeps it afloat?

 

Where are the rumors that they're shopping Z. I thought this was thrown out there by one of us.

[illiniguy]

yesterday they resign Perez for two years. today they are rumored to be shopping Z. does this team want to rid itself of its pesky fan base that keeps it afloat?

 

Where are the rumors that they're shopping Z. I thought this was thrown out there by one of us.

well hoops has predicted some big thigns before, Dlee to cubs.

[USSoccer]

yesterday they resign Perez for two years. today they are rumored to be shopping Z. does this team want to rid itself of its pesky fan base that keeps it afloat?

 

I thought it was just Hoops speculating. I don't think it's an actual sourced rumbling.

[YearofDaCubs]

yesterday they resign Perez for two years. today they are rumored to be shopping Z. does this team want to rid itself of its pesky fan base that keeps it afloat?

 

I thought it was just Hoops speculating. I don't think it's an actual sourced rumbling.

Yeah that. Z isn't going anywhere.