davell

Wow. Out of nowhere. I like it a LOT. My guess is now LaHair WILL begin the season as our opening day !B. But I love Rizzo.

How many more seasons is Cutler under contract for? Is it 1 or 2?

This is why we can't have nice things.

The more I think about this, the more I think now is the perfect time to deal him. Since all monies must be paid within 18 months, let's say we send 45 mill to a team to get rid of him. His salary goes UP this year and next, to 22.5 from 18. But, he's off the books a year earlier than if we even deal him at the deadline. We're not looking like we're spending money this year anyway, other than on stopgaps, so go ahead and deal him now. He's off the books quicker and 2014 gets here and we're not looking at that 18 mill anymore.

With 20-25 mill, after taking care of Forte and Cutler, hopefully by finding someb guys to restructure, giving us a little more room, I'd address a #1 WR before anything else in FA. And I'd add a hybrid OT/OG. After June 1st cuts, I'd look into adding a value guy in the defensive backfield. In the draft, I'm taking an O-Lineman and a DE with my 1st 2 picks, assuming there's value. If not, I'd consider DB or OLB as well. With the 2 3rd's, I'd take a LB and a WR. But, that being said, I also think it's possible to add both a V-Jax/Bowe/Desean type WR and a Carl Nicks as well.

If Soriano was a FA this year, what would he be getting? I hate to say, I'm not sure he'd even get 2 years from anyone. If so, maybe 2/10? I just don't know if he's tradeable yet. Maybe if we're in the middle of the season and he's had a good first half. But, the way this market has shaped up, maybe we pay 45 mill to someone, just to move him? And if so, every cent of that money has to be paid within 18 months. For that reason alone, I think he's more likely to be our starting LFer in 2012, with Byrd being moved within a few weeks.

I've looked for loopholes and have even brought this up before. But, the problem is this: firstly, we'd be losing a pretty high pick next year, possibly the year after as well. Secondly, it's likely we'd piss off other teams by doing this as well. Could even make things difficult in trying to make trades. Thirdly, I think this new structure will keep guys from falling too far. I think that we'll see the top 10 rounds go pretty close to form, with maybe some guys falling outside the top 10 rounds. The question becomes this: Are those guys worth paying double for, along with the lost picks? My honest guess is probably not. I think that we'll spend 5% over our allotment, it's only a 75% tax on the overage and no loss of picks. Could be an extra 500,000 or so. But, the loss of picks and having that money taken out of the next year's budget as well, will probably scare teams out of trying something like that. On the other hand, I could see us and probably some other teams as well, taking the max penalty on IFA's, depending on how good the class is. If it's a really good group, the penalty is a 100% tax and the following year not having the ability to spend over 250,000 on a single player. I think teams will take THAT penalty and just sign a bunch of lower priced guys every other yeat, quantity over quality one year, then the opposite the next one.

I wanted Soler more as soon as some things were posted about him. Especially when it's not a lock Cespedes, at 26, and probably 3 times the money, even starts off in the majors.

The PSD insider guy said there was absolutely ZERO market for Z and there was ZERO percent chance we were keeping him. This was all on Ozzie. He also said that he wouldn't want to sit at the poker table Theo's playing at.

Frankie Piliere's Scout top 100 list just came up. Brett is 34th, Baez is 65th, and Szczur is 82nd. Some very off the wall rankings though, other than ours. Banuelos is 9th, for instance. Betances is 28th. Jacob Turner is 11th, by the way.

I'd say you're jumping to conclusions. So far they declined to go 10/$265M for Pujols, or $52M posting for Darvish. The latter was explicitly a blind bid process, and the former essentially was too. I'd be careful about extrapolating those two situations to some master plan to pinch every penny. One or both of those guys may have been grabbed if the prices were more reasonable. I could have phrased that better, as I definitely see them spending before Soriano's completely off the books. But, by hook or by crook, it's how it's worked out. Because after this season, Soriano will be all that's left. I was using Theo's statement the other day about not spending until you've got a team around what you're spending on.

How insane can you really get in one year? There are the high-end talents, and then what? I think there's plenty of guys to go get. First off, soler is the most important and it appears as if the bulk of his money may come in a signing bonus. If he gets 20 mill, which is likely, it could literally all be in the form of a signing bonus, so you don't have to place him immediately on the 40 man. Personally, I'd rather give him a 4/5 year deal and give him the 40 man spot, but if his camp wants it up front, then he becomes a huge ticket item for this year. Besides him though, there's 2 Cuban 19 year old lefties with strong pedigrees. Both of them will get solid money. Likely a couple mill anyway(this is a guess though) there's the 22 year old lefty that was mentioned with us possibly drafting him last year. He'll be signing and was wanting 10 mill on a major league deal back then. There's a 23 year old reliever that throws 98. That's it for top end talent out of Cuba, but all these guys will be signing before July obviously and probably before March, since they'll want to be in camp. Then, there's the Korean pitcher, who's 18, throws mid 90's and is represented by Boras. He'll get paid big bucks. Plus, there's still 5 Latin American 16 year olds, expected to get bonuses over a mill as well. And a group of over 10 more expecting mid 6 figures. Not counting Soler, it'd be very easy to go out and spend 12-15 mill, if you waanted to and really amp the system up a ton in the process.

I honestly think everyone here sees both sides of this. If we had gone out, won the posting for Darvish, let's say 55 mill, gave him the 5/75 he wants, it's basically 26 mill per year. Say we signed Prince for 6/150 with 15 mill in the 1st year. Did everything else we've done to date and that's it for the entire offseason. Other than spending 4 or 5 mill on IFA's. Our payroll would be 140ish, which appears to fit in the baseball budget, by everything we've read. Is this a contender? I say yes. Is it a flat out juggernaut? No. But, you'd still have 40 mill more coming off again next year, to turn it into one. Would it be sustainable, if you did it that way? With the guys we have running things, I truly think it would be...........this isn't the road we've taken though. We decided to evidently let ALL the bad money go away before respending. I see both sides, I really do. All I want now, is to go all the way, with the rebuild. Wasn't my first choice, but I don't want to halfass anything. If we're tearing it down, tear away. It sucks we'll be also-rans for 2012, probably 2013, and possibly even 2014. If this is the way we're going, I want an absolute insane amount of cash thrown towards IFA's. And I want Garza, Byrd, Soriano, Soto, and Marmol all dealt by midseason. But, it's not my first choice, as I really thought adding 2 bigtime guys, doing little else, would be enough to contend, not hurt things longterm, and allow us to build for the future as well.

As far as signing either Cespedes or Soler(who I think fits us better), I read somewhere for Soler anyway, that the majority of hsi contract will probably be coming in a signing bonus. He's expected to receive 20 mill, so if he requires a 15 mill signing bonus, that's 15 mill towards the payroll all at once. Could be why we've cleared so much money already and why we're not looking at larger one year contract guys even.

Then wouldn't you want to keep Garza? Nah, because it looks like we'll be a couple of years away from contention. If I thought we'd be a contender in 2013, I'd say yes. But, at this point, I don't see it. Giving him a 4 or 5 year deal, where at least 2 of them are wasted with us trying to get to 75 wins doesn't appeal to me. I trust the talent evaluators we have now to get us some extremely solid, close to being ready talent, in return. Including, hopefully anyway, a guy that'll slot into his spot in the rotation. If I could see a scenario where we'll be contenders before 2014, without trading him, I'd think differently.

unfortunately what is also known is that three teams which seemed desperate for young-ish starting pitching (reds, nationals, arizona) just gave up nice prospect packages, and maybe the other teams out there on the market aren't as interested in giving up big-time prospects. While true, I don't think we should expect a package as good as what Oakland got for Gio or the Pads got for Latos. Cahill? Sure, in fact I think we should get slightly more. But, in each of those cases, even if the pitcher is not quite as good as Garza(debateable, except with Cahill, who's just not, period) they were cheaper and had 2 more years of control as well. While we don't know the packages offered, if any of these teams blink, I'm jumping on it, if I'm Theo. One of them likely signs Kuroda, but my hope is he goes back to Japan. Hell, I hope Oswalt winds up with the Cards, just to keep him off these teams radars as well. And Jackson wanting 15 to 17 mill per year, surely scares the hell out of them. I guess I'm saying, I want one of these teams to up the ante, even if it's just a tad, so we can get this thing done.

I like taking the known, more than the unknown. We know he has value right now. He's also the best guy on the market, with4 or 5 teams that have pursued him. At the deadline? What if 2012 isn't as good for him? What if King Felix, one of Lincecum or Cain, maybe Greinke, maybe David Price are all being dangled? Which is possible. I'm not willing to take those risks unless the offers currently don't at least equal what we gave up for him to begin with. My guess though, is we can get more than what we gave up. How much more is the question really, but even if it's the same, I'm going through with it.

According to Kaplan and an "impeccable source" Theo won't budge off the asking price for Garza. I'm thinking we're keeping him at this point. The Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox, and Blue Jays have all said on some level that they're out. Could be posturing obviously, but the more I think about it, the more I really think we NEED to trade him now. It's certainly not looking like we'll be competitive in 2012. 2013? By Theo's comments about not spending big until we're contending or ready to anyway, 2013 seems unlikely to me. That leaves us with 2014 and 2015, if we gave him a 4 year deal. Those would be his 30 and 31 year old seasons and we're right back to where we are currently with him. 2 years from FA. And we've paid him to pitch for us over the 2 noncontending seasons around 20 mill. Go ahead and deal him now, Theo. I'm fairly sure you can get back the same value or more than what we gave up for him. Forget the winning each year is sacred nonsense, because it's not happening in 2012 and you know it, moreso than we do.

If Z was arbitration eligible this year, at what money amount would you nontender him? Would you pay him 10 mill for 2012, in this scenario? How about 5 mill? I think I'd have kept him around 8 mill myself. And unless he's literally HATED by everyone in the lockerroom and also had told us the only trade he was ever going to accept was to Miami, I just wouldn't have made THIS deal. At least should have had some semblance of salary relief.

Unrelated in a way, but I still don't see Wells being part of our 2012 rotation. Garza or part of Garza trade/Dempster/Wood/Volstad/?. I'm not sure why, but I just haven't heard anything about Wells from the FO. My guess is he's dealt or he's our long guy/6th starter.

If we had a choice between Volstad OR Dominguez, did we go the right way? I guess so. But, I'd have rather held onto a motivated, contract seeking Z and see what we've got at the deadline......

Since it appears as if it's a one for one deal, SSR nailed it. This blows. Money is basically the same as if he hadn't dealt Z. We just went from a potential 2/3 guy in Z to a guy who'll have to compete for a spot in the rotation. Headcase or not, I'd rather have Z in 2012 than Volstad. But, the mantra will be 3 years for 1. True, but it'll be a crappy 3 years versus a potentially good one year and at worst, an average one year. Marlins win this one, as far as I'm concerned. Goldstein mentioned Volstad as a guy who could take a step forward this year, I guess that's about the only thing positive I've got on this.

Someone from the Palm Beach paper mentions Dominguez as a possibility. I'm not very high on him, but he IS a potential excellent fielder with average power for the position. Nobody else has reported him as being potentially in the deal as well, but if he IS, it's solid work from our side, in my opinion. He'd be a trade chip at least. This being said, our 40 man is at 40, so unless another move is made or we include something else in the deal, I figure it's a straight one for one deal.

Without looking at his numbers to confirm, MLBTR has Volstad scheduled to make 2.6 mill in arb for 2012. I'm not sure I've ever watched him pitch. If so, he wasn't memorable. He was a 1st round pick and he's very tall. Without cheating, that's all I know about him.

PSD Insider guy says Z is worthless, we'll be paying entire contract and getting Volstad in return. He doesn't mention whether that's ALL we'll be getting back.