davell

I can't see anyone having the pitching that it would take to get me to part with both Shark and Castro in one deal. I asked Nick Faleris in his BP chat today if a top 50, a top 100, and an org top 10 guy was about right for Shark and he said it seemed rich, depending on the major league readiness of the prospects. At any rate, I can't see us parting with him for LESS than that.....So, if you combine all 3 of those players, do you get something close to Archie Bradley or Jameson Taillon in a straight up deal? Possibly. But, if you're going to try for a 1 for 1 deal, thats about the only 2 pitching prospects on THAT level. And who knows if either team is actually comfortable making the deal? Then, add in whatever you think Castro is worth.....Personally, I'll still say more than Shark, in order for us to deal him and then look at the landscape of teams in need and their prospects or young players and I can't see but a single team capable of making us deal them together. The closest I could see is Pittsburgh(and do you want to deal those 2 within the division?) I'd do it, if I got back Taillon, Glasnow, Polanco, and Kingham.....But no way would Pittsburgh make that deal. And I wouldn't take less either.(not selling low on Castro and needing to hurt Pitt since we'd be dealing with the consequences of the deal for a long time) I'm fine selling Shark, it makes sense if he won't extend, and we get ready or near ready pitching in return. But I'm not giving up on Castro at this point, unless I'm getting back the same return I would have at this point last year and it makes sense to do it. Which I just don't see happening-he's lost some value. But he can get it back with a solid season.(I'm more confident than most here that he will, I guess)

Almora singles to open, Manuel basically said he's 3 for us on BA's list. Soler flew out to short RF.

I think I've looked at it the opposite honestly. Other than the idea that Girardi coming could have possibly sped the timetable up a bit, I've had no interest at all. Couldn't even muster getting too pissed with the Red Sox crap. Theo and Co are smart, I don't see any manager as a guy thats worth 5 wins or anything like that(unless you're maybe going Maddon to Dusty or something). Whoever they bring in, I'll be fine with. And its kept me from getting invested in the search.

D-Backs could be offering Skaggs and Delgado, with KC stuck on one of Ventura or Zimmer.

So Castillo is not being shopped? That Arencibia rumor makes no sense then. Good. I can see "current" truth to that. No reason to shop him unless you get Salty. Maybe Lake isn't being shopped, but he's a perfect 2nd or 3rd piece in a large deal. Not sure his value will ever be higher either.

Outside of Zimmer/Ventura... who would be considered as "high end pitching prospects" in the Royals system? I imagine Almonte could be considered as one? Maybe Selman, but I wouldn't consider him as high end. So lets go with this... Shark/Barney/Scheirholtz for Cain/Herrera/Ventura/Zimmer What do you guys think? I would do that and not think twice.

Or its pressure to make him sign an extension. But, your thought was my initial inclination as well. And if you're going to trade him, move him when everyone is still in need and FA are waiting to get their price.

Jay on why he didn't have a hat on during the game-"Check the wind. Yeah, we can do this." As for Mills, Raw and Banedon both summed it up. With our offense, he's fine, at that spot. I think he'll be there for a while and think he'll show steady improvement.

Is Parks "many?" I get your point honestly, but pitching is so volatile, I wonder what percentage Bradley has to actually have a better major league career than Shark does? I can't imagine it being 50% or higher myself. I love the guy as a prospect, but I'd take Skaggs and Delgado over him, if presented my choice. Just seems safer. FA pitching is weak, Shark may be the 2nd best SP on the market, after Price, as far as trade possibilities, and he's relatively cheap for the next 2 years as well. With the value our guys got for half a season of Garza, I'm definitely thinking that IF Shark gets dealt, we'll get a return that is at least on a par(and my guess is slightly better than) with Bradley by himself. That said, no way do I see KT doing it, it'll be KC or Pittsburgh, in my opinion.

I think I'd prefer Skaggs AND Delgado to Bradley by himself.

Well, in the sense that Kevin Towers is a crazy person and might ask for Samardzija and Castro in order to get Bradley, yes. In terms of actual value, Samardzija is more than enough. In fact, if we're trying to come up with packages, something like Skaggs + Holmberg or Bradley + Eaton would be a decent approximation. If they wanted to give away McCarthy's salary as a 3rd piece I'd be agreeable to that too. Skaggs+Bradley+Eaton for just Samardzija? I don't know how to tell you this buddy ... I read it as Skaggs/Holmberg as one deal, Bradley/Eaton as a different one.

Towers is on record saying Theo is the smartest guy he's ever met and is afraid to trade with him, even though they're good friends. This tells me Arizona likely just helps set the price for someone else, if we decide to deal him.

With where we're at currently, obviously the playoffs in 2014 seems a longshot, at the most optimistic. From the "if you ain't first, you're last" sentiment, I'd be fine with finishing dead last, from that perspective if not for what that'd unfortunately show..... It'd mean Castro, Rizzo, and whichever "core" major leaguers we've got around them, have sucked. It would also likely mean that Javy, KB, Alcantara, and anyone else that we hope make it to the bigs have struggled in their initial run-through. With this, it'd also mean ANOTHER loss of attendance, which means less budget AGAIN. These factors definitely have placed me firmly into wanting at least an average 2014 ML team. The fan backlash of sucking again is going to really become apparent quick, when we open 2015 with a 70 mill, bottom 5 type payroll, if we lose 95 again in 2014. If you can't add the big ticket guys this offseason and no trade makes complete sense, then a few decent players not on flippable contracts, need to be added. Edwin Jackson types from last offseason-Guys that can fill a need for us once we are good.

I honestly think I may be responsible for well over half of those.

Didn't the Cubs put in a pretty aggressive offer for Darvish 2 years ago? Granted the Rangers blew everyone out of the water, but I don't think Theo was in any way affected by the Daisuke signing. No one knows any of the losing bids, but its been reported by most that the Rangers blew everyone away, by 20-30 mill, in winning the Darvish bid. Does that make a 20 mill bid agressive, if that is the case? Personally, I say no. Because one team killed the others, therefore, their was ONE agressive bid and a bunch of "maybe we get lucky" bids. As far as Tanaka goes, I think we'll see teams lining up better bids, partly because of Yu's success, partly because of the infusion of cash this year, and partly because there just aren't young, potential frontline starters available anymore. In a sad state of affairs, I think the Cubs will put their absolute best bid in, only to be doubled up by at least the Dodgers and Yankees, maybe others as well. I'm not going to waste time hoping for Tanaka basically. In no way, shape, or form do I see us being the HIGH bid and if the system changes, to where he gets to pick which one of the top 3 he wants to negotiate with? I see Chicago as an also-ran. LA, New York, and Seattle are all much better fits for a Japanese player, due either to Asian population, tradition, current team structure, and/or ownership ties.

We were put in a no-win situation with DeJesus. I'm sure we COULD have dealt him. But when Washington claimed him, it screwed us. We could keep him and exercise his option OR we could save some cash. His trade value at 6.5 mill in 2014? Probably non-existant, plus we wanted to open up more playing time for Lake and Bogusevic. I'm all aboard the "Ricketts is cheap" train obviously.....But this wasn't an issue of that, our hands got tied by Washington, who still got an extremely meh return for him anyway. As for the rest though-I don't think this will be a middling offseason. I think there will be major moves or I think there will be extremely little happening. Not really a middle ground, in my opinion. If our FO is going to sacrifice our 2nd round pick on a FA this offseason, then I think they'll give up their 3rd rounder too. Or else they give up none, in which is a very good and deep draft. The system is deep, but if they miss out on the elite guys, I don't think they'd give up the 2nd rounder for a Curtis Granderson type, for instance......If they signed one of Ellsbury or Choo though, I definitely think we could see them also add Ubaldo. At some point,(I think its now) Ricketts HAS to bite the bullet and come off some money SOMEHOW. The backlash has already been apparent by a steady drop in ticket sales. To the point that the extra MLB money only cancels out our losses, while every other team has an extra 25 mill to throw around. Does this mean you sign guys just to sign them? Of course not. But the FA cupboard looks even worse over the next 2 years as it does now. If we're not capable of signing a couple of 50+ mill types, its going to be harder to do so in the future just based on scarcity. The other strategy I see is not signing any Qualified players, but signing a couple of very high end non qualifiers. Maybe Salty and Infante? Then trading Castillo for the best young SP he can bring back or something like that. A team built that way would be improved from last year and also wouldn't mess with our top minor leaguers yet. With Theo being super cautious with the prospects, I'm actually leaning towards this type of offseason.(as far as what I'm expecting to happen, not what I want to happen) Types of Offseasons 1) The All-in. As Toronto did last year. Think adding 2 Qualified players in FA and at least one extremely solid trade for a cost controlled player. 2) The testing of the waters. Sign one big name and make one positive traction trade. Would show the movement forward everyone is hoping for and shows Theo thinks its getting close. 3) The Hendry splash. Sign one big name just to generate excitement. This would be a Ricketts influenced move, not what I'm pulling for. 4) The hopeful moves. Signing high level non Qualified guys, gives us decent enough upgrades to where we're content heading into the year thinking "if just a few things happen, who knows?" 5) The #PoorTomRicketts The offseason where Theo says he wants Bogusevic in the lineup, Rusin in the rotation, Strop at closer, with the addition of a shiny new backup C, a righty platoon OFer, and a veteran, cheap bullpen "stabilizer". Fan revolt, followed by apathy a very legit concern. In order of likelihood, in my mind? 4, 2, 5, 3, and 1.

No thought put into that, I was trying to find a cheap, middle of the order hitter. I still like Chris Young, if we go with a cheap OFer. But we need a guy to bat in the middle of the lineup until Javy and KB make their triumphant debuts in June.

John likely misconstrued his info. My honest guess is we'll have 25-35 mill to spend AFTER arb raises, which basically places us in the same realm we went into 2013 with. He's a very solid Cubs blogger, this info just got handled incorrectly and his responses didn't help. The bottom line though, is if we don't make any major trades, and fail to land one of Ellsbury, Choo, Cano, Tanaka, McCann, Ervin Santana, etc....It becomes counterproductive TO spend on most of whats available. The entire offseason COULD consist of adding Edward Mujica and Corey Hart, which at least fills two holes and improves those two spots, while everything else could technically get filled from within. Eh, backup C too, I guess. But still, we're probably a 70-73 win team right now with no additions at all. So my guess is we'll be after big ticket, impact types, because we've got enough to fill out the roster already. We miss on them? Payroll could be in the 80's, for lack of need of stopgaps. In the end, I think we'll be extremely active myself, add either Choo or Ellsbury AND Salty, and use Castillo as a key piece in bringing over a solid cost controlled SP. Castro sticks, and I'm 50/50 on what I think happens with Shark.

I'm a big fan of Arguello, he's excellent with minor league coverage and gets his hands on some pretty good rumors. Where in the hell did he get 88 mill from though? Our opening Day payroll last year was around 106. TT has it right, I guess? He's not taking into account Garza, Marmol, etc? So while we're evidently NOT talking about raising it to 131-141, which is what basically was implied, we're talking about it being 113-123, maybe? This has been very odd, to say the least. Maybe just a way to definitively let us know payroll is NOT dropping? He's talking 105 now, which could have easily just been mentioned as us keeping payroll static.....

The Astros just hired Colin Wyers as a mathematical modeler in their Decision Sciences Department. My thoughts: Wyers is an absolute pretentious douchebag. What in the blue hell is a Decision Sciences Department?

i don't get it. they can't fill half of their stadium and yet their tv deal worth infinity money. They had the highest attendance in baseball this year and are in a gigantic market.

Bears signed Ratliff.

Damn, I watched Blaise Ilsley pitch for the Asheville Tourists as a kid.

I do too. It's the perfect mix- Two giant makeup leader types, one cocky as hell [expletive] who's awesome, a dude that chases people with bats, and a jolly, fat guy that everyone loves. Vogelbach? Meh. Plus I don't think he's jolly at all. But werd to the rest of that. DH. The video of Vogelbach taking BP, getting underneath one, hitting himself in the helmet with his bat, shaking it off, and saying "[expletive] me in the ass" endeared him to me forever. Link? Muskat posted it on Twitter last offseason, but took it down 5 minutes later.

It holds up just slightly better than Bill and Ted's does.