Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Backtobanks

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,315

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Backtobanks

  1. Backtobanks
    If we want Alonzo its going be be Garza or bust. I sure hope you don't mean straight up. If the Reds want Garza it had better pull 2 significant pieces on top of that. I would think Marmol would be plenty, especially if you kicked in 5M on an already relatively cheap deal. I'm not sayint that I would want to do it, I'm saying that if we want Alonzo, we're going to have to give up Garza. The only way they'd give him up for a package built around Marmol is if we added in 2 of our top prospects. If they wanted to give us Alonzo and Leake for Marmol, that would be great but I don't see that happening.If we were to do a Garza for Alonzo and something else, the best we could hope for is likely Homer Bailey. While I'm the one who wanted Alonzo, I do think you're over-valueing him. If the Marmol + $$$ isn't enough, then go for a trade centered around Garza for Alonzo + Leake + ?. The Reds need an ace badly and having a butcher (Alonzo) in LF certainly isn't going to help the pitching staff. From MLBTR: •Rival GMs consider Yonder Alonso a one-dimensional player, not someone who could be a centerpiece in a trade for a starting pitcher like James Shields or Gio Gonzalez.
  2. Backtobanks
    There's absolutely no way we would get a "decent prospect package" for Soriano. Getting any prospect (and I mean anybody) and eating $10 million per year would be a miracle.
  3. Backtobanks
    If we want Alonzo its going be be Garza or bust. I sure hope you don't mean straight up. If the Reds want Garza it had better pull 2 significant pieces on top of that. I would think Marmol would be plenty, especially if you kicked in 5M on an already relatively cheap deal. I'm not sayint that I would want to do it, I'm saying that if we want Alonzo, we're going to have to give up Garza. The only way they'd give him up for a package built around Marmol is if we added in 2 of our top prospects. If they wanted to give us Alonzo and Leake for Marmol, that would be great but I don't see that happening.If we were to do a Garza for Alonzo and something else, the best we could hope for is likely Homer Bailey. While I'm the one who wanted Alonzo, I do think you're over-valueing him. If the Marmol + $$$ isn't enough, then go for a trade centered around Garza for Alonzo + Leake + ?. The Reds need an ace badly and having a butcher (Alonzo) in LF certainly isn't going to help the pitching staff.
  4. Backtobanks
    While I would be happy to overpay for Pujols/Fielder, I would rather find a way to get Alonzo from the Reds. Maybe a deal centered around Marmol for Alonzo?
  5. Backtobanks
    If the bidding for CJ Wilson goes much beyond 5yrs/$90 million, he might qualify as the worst signing.
  6. Backtobanks
    I'm not a big fan of trading Garza, but I would love to get Alonzo. That guy is just a born hitter. How about a deal centered around Garza for Alonzo + Wood/Bailey/Leake?
  7. Backtobanks
    I've always said that they should have 2 awards - Player of the Year (from any team) and MVP (from playoff team). Obviously one player could win both.
  8. Backtobanks
    Expected production usually dictates the price, but some teams may overpay out of desperation for a certain role (i.e. closer, middle-of-the-order bat, etc.)
  9. Backtobanks
    1. Which FA will be the worst signing (cost/years vs. expected production)? 2. Which FA will be the best signing (cost/years vs. expected production)?
  10. Backtobanks
    oh totally, i never really understood all the mental gymnastics everyone was trying to do to assume for absolutely no reason that the only reason he's not manager is because he pulled his name out for family reasons. this letter only makes sense if he wasn't the first choice. It could also mean that he might consider managing when his family situation changes or possibly managing Texas in the future. I agree that I don't understand what all the fuss is about his statement. To me it was just a classy guy thanking people for considering him for a job.
  11. Backtobanks
    I agree with you, but our medical staff may have more doubts than their medical staff. Also, I think the expectation level for the Cubs is higher than the Indians. Finally, the risk factor for the Cubs is higher than the Indians because they could possibly use him to DH if he has problems playing the field.
  12. Backtobanks
    Either that or the Cubs have read his medical records and don't think he can really play a significant amount.
  13. Backtobanks
    I agree with you Tim. Wilson in the 5yr/$75-$85 million range would probably be something to get excited about, but getting into more years and $20 million per year is over the top.
  14. Backtobanks
    Another option that I mentioned in a different discussion: How about a deal centered around Marshall for Swisher? Maybe include Byrd with someone like Hughes coming back. The Yankees need a LHRP and Marshall is one of the best. Cubs get a productive middle of the order bat on a 1-year deal ($10 million, with the inside track to sign him to an extension). Use the money saved on Pujols/Fielder to go after Cespedes/Wilson/Darvish.
  15. Backtobanks
    Unfortunately, there will be multiple GMs willing to go better than $60 million/4years for him. I think he is going to be this year's Jason Werth.
  16. Backtobanks
    I wonder if the Yankees would be interested in a deal centered around Swisher for Marshall.
  17. Backtobanks
    I guess it's a little surprising that they said that, but I'm sure any player on any team is available "for the right price".
  18. Backtobanks
    With all the teams that need a power bat at corner OF, I can't see the WS dealing Quentin to us to use as a 1B.
  19. Backtobanks
    I completely understand the delay. When one is putting together the most incredible front office and management in the history of the world, one can't just place names in a hat. Careful consideration is not only wise, but smart. In these interviews, it's possible that some of the candidates are not meeting the expectations of Theo's imagination of what his future Cubs manager should value. That, or several of them are forcing it to be a tough decision. Thanks BBB for an intelligent response. Some of these discussions get so far off track that sometimes you have to look at the title to remember what the topic was.
  20. Backtobanks
    Again I don't understand the delay. We've talked how brilliant the front office is, but they are starting to seem indecisive to me. They put careful thought into the type of manager they want (and didn't want), picked 4 solid candidates to interview, and now are acting like my wife when she's out shopping. Is there really a better candidate out there that fits their criteria and is available?
  21. Backtobanks
    I really don't know what's taking so long. The candidates have been interviewed and vetted, so pick someone already. It's not like Maddon or the like is going to suddenly become available.
  22. Backtobanks
    I totally agree, especially about the manager's job. Either he hasn't made his mind up about some important decisions (manager, Zambrano, FAs, etc.) or he's not telling anybody anything.
  23. Backtobanks
    But it does matter when Soriano (as opposed to Crawford) is up or in LF.
  24. Backtobanks
    Where's the 3rd team? :lol:
  25. Backtobanks
    It would actually make some sense for Boston, as they'd essentially be getting off the hook for the last 4-5 years of Crawfords contract, and by the end he'll be lucky to be what Soriano is now. However, if this was a wink wink compensation deal for Epstein, for us, eating the bitter back end of Crawfords contract would not be at all a better option than giving them a few A ballers. It won't happen, but I think I would do it if they throw in $15-$20 million spread over 2015-2017. It would free up $17 million now to go after Pujols/Fielder.
×
×
  • Create New...