When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. Spending 2.5 million dollars (the past two years) on a pitcher that has a low risk-high reward is not that big of a deal, when our payroll combined those two years was around 200 million.