davell

Well, it was more like "2/3 starter", which for Parks means anywhere between Matt Cain and Chris Rusin. Huh? Parks is not easy to get "3" out of, it's a legit complement, coming from him. A guy like Rusin would get, at best, a "fringe 5" or something of that sort. He's got both PJ and CJ in his overall top 100, it just shows the actual scarcity of finding TOR SP.

Olt is gold! 25 HRs, minimum. Come on, I know you read what North said and it gave you legit hope as well....

You're going with "they won't risk the backlash..." after all this? Yeah, I am. The Tanaka thing was bad enough, considering they hung the entire offseason on it and probably didn't have the funds to get it done. Payroll is going to drop 20% from last year and will be bottom 10 in MLB for sure, the rooftop disaster is a development that puts starting the renovations NEXT year at risk. As valuable as money is to Ricketts, it's unfortunately got to be impacting Theo at this point. I don't see it happening as the potential of "[expletive] it, I can't take any more of this [expletive]" WILL happen at some point to plenty and already has to some. How much could trading Shark before the season started hurt revenue? It's unquantifiable, but it could legitimately hurt, as a possible tipping point(if it hasn't already). Every dollar lost has to be taken into account. Welcome to small market baseball Theo.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/01/23/mike-olts-eyes-his-2013-season-and-his-future-with-the-cubs/ Sharma with a Mike Olt article that gives me genuine hope for him and will affect my ranking of him.

At any rate, we've got some time to figure out what to do with him. Because he's not going anywhere right now. The PR nightmare, after recent events, and the potential backlash in ticket sales, surely means midseason is the earliest this is revisited.

6/120 sucks, that's a fact, in this situation. That said, my GUESS at what happened is this: We had the highest bid, just as had been reported prior to the last couple of days. It appears Tanaka always had the Yanks as his top choice, after reading things that have come out today. Close got the Yanks to move up to 7/155 and likely told us that Tanaka is content. As it IS an agents job to get his guy where he wants to be. Which then left us needing to overpower 7/155 by a decent amount, in order to get him. We were used to bid the Yankees up. I believe that wholeheartedly. Would I have went to 8 years and 200 mill? Yeah, I would have. But, I have no idea if Ricketts would have allowed Theo to do it. Nor do I know if Theo would have, if given the chance. I can certainly understand if that type of number would have made him back out. But, this is where we're at: We're the team that gets used currently. And that's not going to change, because FA wants to go somewhere and win immediately. Our presentation is going to have to include "hey, our plan is to get you AND(blank) right now. If it doesn't, we aren't getting the big names without overbidding by quite a bit. So we're left hoping more of our question marks turn out well than not, in hopes of giving us a more feasible shot on paper, heading into next offseason. Those question marks? What do Rizzo, Castro, and Castillo look like in 2014? Does Shark(if he's here) take a step forward? Does Travis Wood show last year wasn't a fluke? Does Arrieta turn into a definite rotation piece? How about Hendricks, Grimm, or Rusin? Do we get anything out of Mike Olt? Does Ryan Sweeney show he can be a league average starter? How about Lake? Do either of Vitters or Brett Jackson show enough life to be considered salvageable? Does Alcantara, Villanueva, or Szczur show enough that they're considered a lock to be on the 2015 Opening Day roster? Does our group of bullpen power arms take the step forward that we expect? Not EACH of them, but at least a few of Strop, Parker, Rondon, Vizcaino, Cabrera, and Rivero..... And finally, most importantly, in my opinion, are we able to definitively pencil Javy and KB into our Opening Day 2015 lineup, by the end of 2014? Obviously, there are going to be some hits and some misses out of this stuff. The key is going to be which are which and if we have more positives than negatives. From an individual standpoint, it's feasible to see any singular thing go right. We know, as a whole though, that they won't ALL work. But it's something that I can understand the FO wanting to see play out though, even if I am impatient. At any rate, we NEED as much as humanly possible to go right, especially since I'm not exactly confident in the business department having the renovation saga settled or having a new, big TV deal in place, by this time next year.

Which is wiped out by arb raises. BR has an estimated 70.5M committed for 2015, though this would include Shark's Arb 3 estimate. So with 25M to play with, SP and OF being the only overwhelming needs, and the pathetic rumored returns for Samardzija, yes, I'd extend Shark I'm weighing that versus having the extra 10 mill of Shark's salary to play with. I'm trying to decide what I like better: Shark, PJ and CJ versus 10 mill, PJ, CJ, a top 50 pitching prospect and likely a top 100 type as well. Edit: Didn't see the pathetic return comment. If we can't get a top 50 and a top 100 guy, I'm NOT dealing him. Atlanta has no farm system currently, Baltimore is stingy to begin with. AA seemed willing to deal one of his 2 main guys, just not both. That was a solid start, depending on what else was in the package. I can't blame KT for not dealing Archie obviously, my guess is Skaggs plus was on the table, which COULD have been interesting.....

Which is wiped out by arb raises. BR has an estimated 70.5M committed for 2015, though this would include Shark's Arb 3 estimate. So with 25M to play with, SP and OF being the only overwhelming needs, and the pathetic rumored returns for Samardzija, yes, I'd extend Shark I'm weighing that versus having the extra 10 mill of Shark's salary to play with. I'm trying to decide what I like better: Shark, PJ and CJ versus 10 mill, PJ, CJ, a top 50 pitching prospect and likely a top 100 type as well. Edit: Didn't catch the pathetic returns part. If the return is LESS than a top 50, and a top 100, I definitely would NOT deal him. Other than Atlanta, who has no farm system anyway, I'm not remembering what rumors you're talking about. AA mentioned he'd consider dealing one of his 2 main guys, we just wanted both. Baltimore is stingy, but that can't surprise anyone. I can't blame KT for not dealing us Archie, I'm sure Skaggs and more was on the table, which may have been decent.

Nah, you've also got Soriano's 13 mill coming off our current payroll.

The 2015 FA market is pretty much a dumpster fire, especially on the starting pitching side I agree that OVERALL the FA market in 2015 is a dumpster fire, but SP is the strength of it. From a position player standpoint, the best available are as follows.... Russell Martin-not a need for us Michael Cuddyer- Not sure if he's still decent in the OF or not, but at 36, I'd guess the answer is no. Asdrubal Cabrera- Not a need for us Jed Lowrie- My hope is he's not a need, but considering he can play 2B, SS, and 3B, I guess he's a slight possibility, even if I think we'll be set at all 3, heading into 2015. Chase Headley- Again, not a likely need, but it depends on what happens, I suppose. Pablo Sandoval- See Headley Hanley Ramirez- If the Dodgers don't lock him up, it's likely because he's not able to stay healthy. Plus, with his want to stick at SS, he's not a great fit with us as it is. Brett Gardner- If the Yanks don't lock him up, he'd be a nice get for us and many other teams as well. Josh Willingham- At 36, he'll be old, but a short term deal could make some semblance of sense for a bunch of teams, including us. Coco Crisp- At 35, my guess is he'll find a longer deal than we'd want to give out. Colby Rasmus- This is the guy I think we could target, but something screams BJ Upton type mistake to me, for some reason. Still, at 28, he's a logical target. For Starting Pitching, it's this group..... Chad Billingsley- He's coming off TJS, but I've always sort of liked him. He'd be a nice 2-3 year mid rotation type, if he comes back healthy. Homer Bailey- Definite target. Jorge De La Rosa- Decent mid rotation lefty, probably too old and gets too many years for us anyway. Ryan Dempster- Yeah, just no. Yovani Gallardo- 13 mill option, if he hits FA, decent mid rotation guy, with ability to put together a frontline year still. Josh Johnson- Pitching in SD could put him back on the map. Jon Lester- doubt he hits FA, definite target, if he does. Danny Masterson- Will hit FA, another definite target. Brandon McCarthy- he'll likely be in same spot as last time, searching for a multi-year deal. Brandon Morrow- 10 mill option, if he's healthy, my guess is it'd get picked up. Jake Peavy- Nice shorter term option. Max Scherzer- He may wind up sticking in Detroit, but he'll test FA at least. James Shields- Can't see the Royals ponying up for him, at his age. Which may take him out of the running for us as well. As for Shark? If we look at Wood, Jackson, and at one of Arrieta, Hendricks, Rusin, or whoever as definites for next year, with Wood showing that 2013 wasn't a fluke? It'd be nice to keep him, but is he really the guy you want to be paying 17-20 mill a year to? If we can get back a Stroman, a Gausman, or a Sanchez or some other top 50 pitching prospect(and much more) is their upside as high as Shark's is? Are you comfortable banking on one of them or CJ or PJ becoming at least a 3 long term? And being a rotation guy in 2015, on top of that? If so, that extra cash saved from Shark's longterm deal WOULD be very valuable. I just don't know which way I lean honestly.

Isn't he a 3-4 guy? Yes. As if we needed more evidence of what's coming. Just a hybrid, right? I don't see a full switch immediately or am I missing something?

Isn't he a 3-4 guy?

Kemp? What about Hamels? I doubt either are available as salary dumps, to be honest. The posting system issues sucked in more ways than one for us. I'm sure Theo valued him enough to wait it out instead of shooting our wad on ONE other big name FA, but if it HAD happened earlier in the offseason, I could have saw them going after Ellsbury. That said, it really seems like all these guys are using us as leverage to get their preferred destinations to bid more, as it's not ideal to come in to a losing situation. The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking our first real shot at ANY of these big names is when we go into the offseason with the pitch of "Lets add multiple big names". Pairing two big names(or more, yeah I laughed too) seems to be our best shot. If we're truly stuck around a 100 mill payroll, next year, or anytime after, is when we will conceivably in a position to do something like that, even without a new TV deal.

And then, we'll jump OUT of the trojan rabbit.

Disagree. It's more or less how they've framed the choice every offseason they've been here. If we're capped at a 100 mill payroll, it severely limits your options obviously. That said, between Darvish, Cespedes, Puig, Ryu, and Tanaka-with our complete emphasis being on youngsters, at least one and in my opinion, two, of this group should be Cubs currently. I don't think the payroll matters going forward. Assuming Tanaka's first year plus 2/3rds the posting fee would be about $35m, we're apparently content to leave $25m or more on the table this year. Edwin Jackson was 29 for his entire first season of the new contract, same with Anibal Sanchez. That appears to be the absolute upper limit that they'll go on these very large deals. They'd rather leave money unspent that commit it on buying a guy's age 32-37 seasons. I hope you're wrong. Theo has always said when we were close and we NEEDED that guy for the first few years of that type of deal, its a necessary evil. At this point though, I don't know what to think. Our current payroll obligations lead me to hope we're readying ourselves for a couple of large contracts soon. But without a good TV deal(and I'm not counting on it with the dumbasses we've got running the ship) we may be a mid market team for a while.

Disagree. It's more or less how they've framed the choice every offseason they've been here. If we're capped at a 100 mill payroll, it severely limits your options obviously. That said, between Darvish, Cespedes, Puig, Ryu, and Tanaka-with our complete emphasis being on youngsters, at least one and in my opinion, two, of this group should be Cubs currently.

With Gammons being really tight with Theo, I do trust him, even if he is senile.

How about @SelltheCubsyouDumbAss? Or @ChokeonaBisonBurgeryouCheapBastard? Or @IamaRichIdiot. Or @CanIgetSadMusicandRizzoLookingMalnourished. Or @McCourtYouAreMyHero? [expletive] it.

I think they did that, expecting to do more this year, but got scared off by Castro and Rizzo not making strides. So, they took a step back, since payroll is an issue with us and they didn't want to box themselves in. That is a frightening concept. I'm not saying I agree with it. But doesn't it fit directly with Theo saying they "jumped the gun" on Edwin?

He's so good at hitting, that if he had a position he'd be in the discussion for top 4. What about the fact that his OPS was 25th in the Midwest League last year? I get the theory that his bat would place him very high if he actually played well at 1B and that he did actually destroy AZ and the NWL, but if it is all about the bat, shouldn't the lack of dominance last year be a little disappointing? His number one goal, according to him and the FO was to learn to go the other way more, which they thought would result in a power decrease initially.

I think they did that, expecting to do more this year, but got scared off by Castro and Rizzo not making strides. So, they took a step back, since payroll is an issue with us and they didn't want to box themselves in.

While Cubs executives praised themselves for pushing a deal with the rooftop owners to the finish line at last weekend's Cubs Convention, news came out Wednesday that the Cubs' rhetoric -- Ricketts basically called them crooks again while president Crane Kenney blamed them for the slow start to city-approved Wrigley renovations -- had helped to sour negotiations. [expletive] idiots.

Source? Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher. Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners). The bottom line is that all of these "experts" don't have a clue as to which team offered what except for the winning bid. All of the speculation about which team was in the lead "according to sources" was ridiculous. Each team didn't know what the other team's bids were, but these reporters had the "facts" posted all over the internet. Um, you do realize the posting system changed, right? We have no idea how negotiations went. They may have known what other bids were, they may not have.

Well, we do have the newt version of Theo......

I prefer my you get nothings in this form.