davell
-
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
-
Like the move. Figure it's a 1 or 2 year deal for 4 or 5 mill per. Bat him 2nd? Maybe leadoff?
-
Over a 2 year period, this IS ambitious, but also possible. My thinking is that's not going to be close to enough to get Gio, nor will that contract get us Pujols. I think it'll take over 250 for us to get him and even then, if the Cards are within 20 or 30 mill, I think he'd stay put. Assuming Ethier has a bounce back season, I think 15 a year is more likely for him. That said, this team is probably around a 150ish mill area and it'd certainly create a ton of excitement. I doubt it's Hamels personally, but I definitely see us adding a bigtime starter thru FA next offseason. Darvish is iffy for me as well, due to the fact I don't see him coming until next year. And I doubt we go after 2 guys like that. But I like the thought process and think the "gist" is right on. A team like this is possible within 2 years.
-
I don't really have any interest in Moreland. Something like Holland, Olt, and a flyer, or Ogando, Perez, and Olt; that would work for me. I agree that I'd much rather have Olt and Perez than Moreland, if that was a potential offer. But I could see Moreland giving us decent to solid production for cheap, kind of like we hope or had hoped Colvin would do. In the end, Ogando intrigues me enough to pull the trigger and take Moreland and an Olt or Perez, if it came down to it and Detroit doesn't have Porcello and Turner on the table. I guess the Yanks could come up with an extremely attractive package as well, but if that Texas package was the best offer, it'd still get me to pull the trigger.
-
I agree with Ace. Ogando and Moreland offer cheap production and upside, especially with Ogando. Adding a top 100 prospect to that, I think I'd be in. That said, I'd take Profar and either Perez or Olt over the major league friendly package just mentioned.
-
I think Ricketts said the overall baseball budget would be about the same as last year just yesterday. Now, we spent 20 mill on the draft and IFA last year while that's probably not happening again. So, I figure that money heads directly back into major league payroll. But, the bottom line for me is Ricketts has said in the past that our payroll would be dictated by how much we make, with profits being put back into the team. We have had some lean years since he took over, so my guess is when we have a contender again and full attendance into the latter parts of the year, our payroll can move upwards fairly quickly. Ricketts has done nothing to make me think otherwise.
-
I have zero interest in Votto in an offseason where Pujols and Fielder are out there. Votto is going to cost very serious pieces and using them on a 1B when we can go sign one and use those pieces for other holes, makes no sense at all.
-
I would like to think that any analyst on ESPN or wherever else, would be able to look at what Ricketts inherited and understand completely as to WHY there have been no major moves made. And if not, I would certainly like to hope that the hiring of Theo would assure these guys that Ricketts is willing to spend. Because Theo didn't leave Boston to take over a middle of the road payroll team that happens to be in a HUGE market.
-
Lucchino flat out bypassed Cherington and his choice of Sveum. No wonder Theo wanted out and hopefully Cherington knows he has some sort of cool titled job waiting for him here once he's tired of all this crap.
-
So if the Rangers put Ogando and Moreland on the table, is that enough? And can Moreland play a legit RF, because I wouldn't consider this unless he can. Still, I think it'd take them adding Perez or Olt to the mix to make me bite. But, it's intriguing.
-
Jed still seems a tad wet behind the ears, which is fine, because I like hearing some semblance of what the braintrust is thinking. But I bet he got a nice little scolding from Theo for that piece of info. Maybe even a ruler taken to his hands.
-
Maybe, maybe not. CJ's from California so maybe he's going to give them a shot he's not willing to give anyone else.
-
I'd be out at that price.
-
The point you make about Darvish not being posted possibly is an excellent one. Jackson becomes the 2nd best starter in a market where there's a dozen teams in need probably. Jackson on a 4 or 5 year deal is NOT worth it, totally agree.
-
If Jackson comes at 3/36 or so, I have no real problem with him - if it doesn't hinder a possible Wilson/Darvish addition. If he gets into 4 years and/or the $15 million/year range, I lose interest really fast. I agree. My main interest in him is tied to us moving Garza. If we move Garza, it's because I see us adding a frontline guy in the return and also have the ability to add another one through trade. Jackson becomes the 3. If we keep Garza, I can see us adding a guy through trade and also adding one thru FA as well. In that case, it's too much money for us to pay Jackson as a 4. So, for me, if we keep Garza, I'm wanting more than Jackson as an addition.
-
Yeah, the more I've read, the more in favor of Headley I am. If it takes McNutt or Szczur, I'm not getting scared away. That said, we may only have the ammo to make one solid trade, so if it comes down to adding Headley or adding a Trevor Cahill type, I'm still taking the pitching. But, if we don't have the bait to make a deal like that happen, I'm all for Headley.
-
My reasoning for why I like Jackson, especially if do trade Garza is that we'd be adding a mid rotation starter with upside. Yeah, we'd be losing a frontline starter in Garza, but monetarily we're basically in the same place as before these 2 moves. The key here is the return you're getting on Garza. If you're adding a Porcello and Turner. Or maybe an Ogando and Perez. Or whatever else. But, the key is you're adding a cheaper guy with frontline potential and more solid parts as well. And then, you've still got plenty of cash to throw around, if you really want to add Wilson or Darvish or make a trade for another bigtime arm.
-
I really like the idea here. Spend big one year, go way overslot. If budget is 9, spend 15. Still not sure whether we'd be paying 30 mill for that or 21 mill, if it's just taxed on overage. Either way, following year the slot goes WAY down due to not having a 1st or 2nd. That's really when you use the senior signings to your advantage. Spend like 300,000 on 6 guys and the rest on 2 guys that fall. Yeah, you're signing more and more organizational guys, but you're still bringing in some bigtime talent as well each season. And over a 2 year period, you're still spending around the same as we'd have probably allocated, just in a much different way. I fully expect Theo and Jed to find whatever loopholes there are and this may be one. Yeah, you gotta pay up a bit more to do this, but it's the easiest way for us to still build the system up quickly.
-
I don't want to give up much for Stewart. He's got upside, but he's definitely a buy low guy. If the asking price is even remotely high, I'd rather just sign a Betemit, to where it doesn't cost us any prospects. I'd be willing to give up a decent package for Headley though. He's by far the best option we have.
-
I think we'll make an offer to Pujols. Doubt we get him, but we'll probably drive the price up on the Cards. And then, I figure we'll get Fielder, if we want him. And with the new CBA, I'm starting to think we'll be throwing some serious cash around this offseason.
-
I took it more as Levine thinks the package we gave up isn't going to come back and haunt us. And we should hope for better luck in what we get for him than what Tampa received from us.
-
While I agree Levine's opinion's are pretty odd, I don't see anything wrong with that exact statement. Archer's ceiling may have already gone from a frontline starter to a closer or set up guy. Lee has question marks and none of Guyer, Chirinos, or Fuld are going to be everyday starters, or at least good ones. The Garza trade looks much better on our end than it did when we made it.
-
BA & BP's Cubs Top Prospect Lists
davell replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Wow, some interesting stuff, no doubt. Leads to more questions really. How has Antigua regressed, for instance? Stats looked good in Daytona. Hard to believe he missed their top 30. Jose Rosario makes the top 30? What's he got going for him? I would have thought a Liria or Peralta would make the list{hell, maybe they did} ahead of Rosario, but who knows? I haven't had any of them in mine for a while. I think I had Peralta in at one point. -
Trading Soriano
davell replied to ctcf's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Soriano for Figgins, Cubs kick in 13 mill. Leaves Mariners responsible for 3/24 on Soriano's deal. Leaves us with 2/17 for Figgins. Yes, Figgins is AWFUL, but I can't see us finding anything better than this. Keep Soriano another year and trade him when he's got 2/36 left on his deal. It's not worth taking on a Figgins or a Vernon Wells or even a Barry Zito. I guess if we could get nothing in return and find a team willing to pay him 3/24, I'd be OK with sending 10 a year to whoever. Having an extra 8 mill per season to work with would help some at least. -
I'm afraid it's going to take an extremely sizable difference in offers to make Pujols decide to leave the Cards.
-
I'm not sure why his K rate is so low. He's got good stuff. I guess I'm interested in hin because of the contract Heyman mentioned with him, which was 3/36. If it takes a 4th or 5th year, which I've even speculated on, my interest goes down. I don't view him as a 1 or 2, by the way. I think of him as a 3, but still young enough to become more. I guess I figure adding him, losing Garza, adding 2 top 100 prospects, and still having the ammo to go out and add a 1 or 2, maybe both, if we make a trade, would be OK with me. As long as one of the supposed top 100 prospects is a pitcher with 1 or 2 potential.