Backtobanks

Signing Sheets may be stupid if it's another bad contract. Also, someone here said MLB Network was reporting he was topping out at 90? If that doesn't increase, i pass. Of course but correct me if i'm wrong on this, wasn't sheets suppose to start throwing later this month? Didnt know he had already started. Also in regards to Muskats report, its pretty much what we already know. Cubs aren't going to sign sheets unless his demands go down big time.[/quote] Nobody is going to sign Sheets unless his demands go down big time.

Most of the players making $10 million or more on any team are overpaid. Any pitcher that wins 10-12 games or hitter that bats .275 with 25 HRs is looking for a contract that pays more than $10 million over 3-4 years.

From MLBTR: The White Sox have added over $29MM in new contracts this winter, acquiring/re-signing Mark Teahen, Juan Pierre, J.J. Putz, Mark Kotsay, Omar Vizquel, Freddy Garcia, Castro, Andruw Jones, and others. Williams spending $30 million for that crew makes Hendry look frugal.

This being said, Id be very interested in Ankiel if hed take something like a 1/3 deal. Certainly no more than $3 million. He made $2.8 million last year and didn't do anything to deserve a raise.

He hit 49 HR's as a rookie and would have likely still made plenty had he never touched them. He did make more by taking them but he would have still made plenty without them. That said I agree when people like this admit they need to stress the kids more so they understand that it wasn't worth it in the end. Anyways my first reaction was regret that the crazy youtube Cards fan was retired. This video would have been epic. What makes you think his 49 HR's were clean? Pujols will be the next big name when he's caught.

Today's Tribune says we're still kicking the tires on Heath Bell.

According to today's Tribune, Dawson asked to wear a Cubs' cap on his plaque. I guess the HOF and the player jointly decide in a case like this.

I don't think we need another vet reliever, but the bottom line is that Lou probably wants one. Veterans have a track record to base their use on and managers take comfort in knowing what to expect when the reliever comes in.

He probably will be the last, but Raines has an outside chance of making it down the line.

Let's not forget that Dempster is likely to break his toe jumping over the dugout railing again. The Cubs were probably 2nd to the Mets for the "most missed time to key players" during 2009.

From MLBTR (Dierkes' predictions on remaining FA): Kiko Calero - Cubs. A dozen teams could use Calero, who has generated surprisingly little interest. I expect the Cubs to add a late-inning arm Calero would be a decent pickup if the price is right.

Rosenthal from Foxsports makes some FA predictions: Ben Sheets — Arguably the best starting pitcher in the entire free-agent class, but the question remains: Is he healthy? Sheets missed all of last season while recovering from elbow surgery. Teams likely will want to see him throw before deciding whether he is worthy of an investment. He still makes the most sense for a high-revenue club that can absorb the risk, but the Yankees and Red Sox do not figure to spend more on starting pitching. Prediction: Cubs.

I think his numbers look pretty good. Of course his numbers are better against righties than lefties, but overall he does a decent job. As for his endurance, I would imagine he usually doesn't need to pitch over 1 inning in most of his appearances. I think he might be a decent pickup, but I think you would need to pay more than a low-level prospect.

In appearance, Cabrera is getting close to Bartolo Colon. Thank god his production is better.

Fukudome is signed through 2011. He doesn't have a NTC, so I think it possible he might get shopped if one of the youngsters starts showing something.

I don't think Boras cares where his clients are playing as long as they are getting paid. The reason they wind up in big markets is because the franchises in those cities can afford the price. I read this all the time and still don't understand it. What's not to get. All ballplayers (including AP) have egos, especially when you're the best player in the game and the face of the franchise. The players have dominated the labor situation for so long that a contract means nothing anymore. Unfortunately, your greatness is measured by the size of your contract. If AP decides he wants to be the highest paid player on the Cards, they will rip up his contract and pay him more.

The bottom line is that Byrd being "average" is good enough. He's making below average pay for a starter, so expectations shouldn't be unreasonable. Bradley signed a big contract and expectations were high so they're completely different situations.

No, he didn't, but he bought a company that owned the Cubs and that investment plummeted in value, as did his own net worth. You can talk about write-offs all you want, but there is a tremendous financial risk at stake here and some people are without question losing money. Zell's purchase of the Tribune was not your typical case study in major league baseball ownership. He bought a company that happened to own the team, and then tried to flip the team. We have no idea how much Zell valued the Cubs portion of the purchase, nor how much the Cubs were worth when Zell bought them. Everyone knew that the price was going to be high, but until there were actual bidders everything was just speculation. Ownership of a major league baseball team has been very profitable for most of the owners and is generally seen as a safe investment. Not only do they get to depreciate the value of the franchise and retain all of/if not most of the profit every year for the first 15 years, when they do sell they only pay the long term capital gains tax, which is substantially less than income tax. Also, they do enjoy the ability to write-off items for gain, but in the Ricketts case, I don't see how writing off anything would help them considering the amount of depreciation they will be entitled to take. Thanks for explaining my point. There might be a few owners losing money, but the vast majority are making a ton of money. TV rights and MLB merchandising provide the majority of the cash. I doubt that owners make "a ton" off of sports teams. if that were the case, why wouldn't more businesses buy sports teams? Most of the buyers are people who are already rich. Teams tend to derive their value more from the ability to resell them at a higher price and the people who are willing to buy them. If you're making a solid profit every year, enjoying tax breaks, and your investment is appreciating yearly, I would say you're making tons of money. The owners prove that when all of a sudden they "find" $100 million to pay someone like Holliday. It's all a game between Boras and the owners. When you look at the owners that are in trouble financially, it's usually their problems outside of MLB that are messing them up.

No, he didn't, but he bought a company that owned the Cubs and that investment plummeted in value, as did his own net worth. You can talk about write-offs all you want, but there is a tremendous financial risk at stake here and some people are without question losing money. Zell's purchase of the Tribune was not your typical case study in major league baseball ownership. He bought a company that happened to own the team, and then tried to flip the team. We have no idea how much Zell valued the Cubs portion of the purchase, nor how much the Cubs were worth when Zell bought them. Everyone knew that the price was going to be high, but until there were actual bidders everything was just speculation. Ownership of a major league baseball team has been very profitable for most of the owners and is generally seen as a safe investment. Not only do they get to depreciate the value of the franchise and retain all of/if not most of the profit every year for the first 15 years, when they do sell they only pay the long term capital gains tax, which is substantially less than income tax. Also, they do enjoy the ability to write-off items for gain, but in the Ricketts case, I don't see how writing off anything would help them considering the amount of depreciation they will be entitled to take. Thanks for explaining my point. There might be a few owners losing money, but the vast majority are making a ton of money. TV rights and MLB merchandising provide the majority of the cash.

Zell turned a healthy profit on the Cubs and still owns .05 of them. To think oterwise is looney. I typed too fast for my brain there, I don't recall what Zell paid for the Cubs, (it wasn't the 1B # that B2B believes wasn't true or something) he may have made a profit Zell took a bath on his entire Tribune ownership stake, which included the Cubs. He bought the company when the Cubs were valued by most at $1B, and sold them for less. You'd have to do some really funny accounting to say he made money on that investment. But he didn't buy the Cubs seperately for $1 billion and then sold them for less. Also, I would question the value of the Cubs being $1 billion in the marketplace at that specific time. Every article that I read said that the value of the Cubs could be as much as $1 billion.

Zell turned a healthy profit on the Cubs and still owns .05 of them. To think oterwise is looney. I typed too fast for my brain there, I don't recall what Zell paid for the Cubs, (it wasn't the 1B # that B2B believes wasn't true or something) he may have made a profit Jersey Cubs Fan is the one who stated $1 billion, not me. I'm the one pointing out that these owners are making plenty of money and poor mouthing all the way to the bank.

Owners of MLB franchises are extremely successful business men who are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think they would invest in and hold onto an investment that loses tens of millions of dollars? If you believe that, do you believe there isn't a gigantic tax write-off? These guys aren't idiots.

Apparently you don't understand the pitiful economy. Do you think all of these owners have a ton of money available to throw at Matt Holliday, Jason Bay and the like, but are crying foul so their team can suck this year while they pocket all the cash instead? The one example you used was one of the biggest market teams in the entire league (the Mets). How much the team might be worth today or tomorrow doesn't really have anything to do with having available money to increase the budget to field a winning team. Throwing money around isn't necessarily the recipe for success anyway. Just ask Jim Hendry. It's quite possible some of these other team owners are tired of watching teams like Florida and Tampa and San Diego put teams in the playoffs with much smaller payrolls. Couple in the tough economic times, and now seems like a great time to change the philosophy of spending on scouting and coaching and drafting to build your team rather than buying someone else's castaways. I agree that throwing money around doesn't make sense, but the bottom line is that teams don't have to win to make money. In fact we just had a discussion showing that the most cost-efficient teams are small market teams. As for the owners crying foul over Holliday, Bay, etc., they will reach into their pockets and pay them in the end. If a team has a decent supporting cast, it doesn't make financial sense to pay a FA $16-$18 million per year over someone making $4-$6 million, but the fact that they do end up paying proves that they do have the cash to pay for what they want. According to reports, 2 mid-market teams (Cards and Orioles) are offering over $100 million for Holliday. I think most of the FA signings have been for more money than the players are worth.

Kramer, is that you? When Zell purchased the Tribune, the Cubs were reported to be worth $1B, they sold for much less two years later. The Tribune bought them for $20 million in the 80's, so they turned a pretty good profit on their investment. Also, what the Cubs were reported to be worth is different than what they were really worth.

This list makes me want to cry If you read the comment under the list, most of those guys would provide help in a 4th OF/platoon/pinch hitter role. Certainly better than Fuld.