Jump to content
North Side Baseball

davell

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,380

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by davell

  1. davell
    That was basically my thought as well, but I'd say the renovations and lack of money make .500 in 2014 at least a tad harder to get there. Gun to my head though, playoffs in 2015.
  2. davell
    I'm in the camp that if we can trade Shark for Taillon and Glasnow or for Bradley and Skaggs-its good enough to make the deal. But I wouldn't trade Wood for Bundy. As Kyle has mentioned repeatedly, we're not to the point of punting 2014. Taillon or Bradley could at least potentially replace Shark next year. Bundy can't do that for Wood and is too risky as it is, to make that deal, in my mind.
  3. davell
    I'm not saying the Pirates are ideal to trade with, by the way. I'm just saying the exact package I mentioned would MAKE me do it. I'd much rather Arizona send Bradley/Skaggs/Holmberg/Eaton......My disclaimer here being I seriously doubt EITHER of those teams would offer that, maybe not even close to it, so we're just fine keeping him and hopefully locking him up longterm. I'm not sure the Red Sox are a great fit, as the 3rd team mentioned in all of this. Bogaerts would be a great get, but holy hell, we'd be running out of infield positions for guys to play. And I totally understand trading for talent over need. It'd take Bogaerts/Webster/Rubby/Owens and there's no chance the Red Sox would come close to that. I'm NOT in favor of trading Shark, I just figure that if we did, it'd be for enough that all of us would be happy. Which is no different a stance than what I think on Schierholtz, DeJesus, or Russell.
  4. davell
    Maybe they'll spend all the playoff revenue you helped them get to be able to afford his extension. Not to mention it probably wouldn't hurt for us to care a little about the 2014 and 2015 NL Central. Or Taillon could be just as good or better in the majors next year than Shark is. There's obviously two ways to look at everything.
  5. davell
    I wouldn't have a problem trading Shark to the Pirates. Mainly because if he's good for them, they won't be able to afford him after 2015 anyway. If they'd part with Taillon/Polanco/Glasnow/Kingham, I'd do it and not look back.
  6. davell
    I don't think Darvish was a legit possibility, with our ownership's financial crap, so I don't count him.
  7. davell
    The two "woulda, coulda, shoulda" moves that have been available to us, that needed to happen were that([expletive] you Dempster) and Puig.
  8. davell
    If they ever get around to winning, they might get more slack. Yeah, because with a capped 110 mill type payroll and what they inherited, its easy as hell to turn that into a winner quick.
  9. davell
    Sweet.
  10. davell
    Wow, 50 mill over 6 years, with incentives that could push it over 60.
  11. davell
    I wonder what kind of money a team actually gets in situations like this? I think we've done 4 of these deals now this year, with Moscoso, Lillibridge, Gonzalez, and Takahashi. If it nets an extra 100k or more per deal, it could conceivably turn itself into a mid level IFA signing, I guess.
  12. davell
    Down to one team in each league. I still have no idea if I want us to get him or not.
  13. davell
    No clue why we gave the Dodgers any money. My only guess is to get back on decent terms with them after the Dempster crap from last year, but thats obviously flimsy. I DO think any IFA money we added originally was to go towards keeping us under the max penalty, but we had to scrap that and likely give Jimenez at least a bit more than we thought we'd have to. In the end, it really winds up just saving us penalty money. And anyone we sign after Jimenez is going to cost us double the bonus.
  14. davell
    Parks has us 2nd right now, behind the Twins. Depending on who's rankings it is, the only teams I can see ranked above us by anyone would be the Twins, Red Sox, Astros, Cards, and Pirates.
  15. davell
    Kudos, Kyle.
  16. davell
    I think there's probably enough teams dangling bullpen arms that our shot at moving Gregg for anything remotely useful has passed. That said, I'd shoot bigger with the Pirates and see if we could pry Glasnow away with Schierholtz and Russell.
  17. davell
    PSD has some quality posters, but the insiders and Yagyu's draft coverage are what keeps me going there.
  18. davell
    I think we've saved around 7.5 or so. My guess is we can figure 2-2.5 of it goes into IFA overage penalties, once Jimenez is signed. With any IFA signed after him being counted as well, at double the cost, with the overage.
  19. davell
    I don't see a gigantic dropoff either. Not like last year for sure. We're much deeper and its not even close.
  20. davell
    Crap, I forgot about that. Kyle's right. Assuming Tseng is official, we can only add 200k now.
  21. davell
    Not really a Sickels fan, but am a little surprised he had Black as a B- guy heading into the season. Saving 5 mill off next seasons payroll is pretty solid.
  22. davell
    We've now spent 5.1 of 5.5 mill. I think we can acquire around 1.3 mill more of space, but assuming Jimenez gets 2.8, we'll still hit the highest penalty.
  23. davell
    If we're trying to acquire extra IFA money to lessen our overage penalties, we just missed out on a possibility. The Angels just gave up 360,500 in space for a 22 and 23 year old that haven't played fullseason ball yet and aren't top 30 prospects.
  24. davell
    I'll miss Sori. My uneducated guess at a return is Bryan Mitchell. He's in High A, on the 40 man, with very middling looking stats. But according to BA, scouts say has a chance at having a plus plus FB and CB.
  25. davell
    Graham hasn't pitched since early May. We're likely wary of trading for another injured Braves player right now.
×
×
  • Create New...