Backtobanks

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.

Never would happen, Z wouldn't waive his no trade for Baltimore. I think the teams he would waive it to, are actually all options. The Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and a long shot would be the White Sox. Z would definitely waive his no trade for the White Sox but i doubt JR would take on his contract. Ozzie would probably convince them about Z's attitude. I don't believe all of these stories about cash-strapped teams (except the Cubs), but all of those teams you mentioned are supposedly maxed-out on their budget. Of course, the Mets were "cash-strapped" and then signed Bay to a contract for more than $16 million per year. You don't think that these corporate execs that own sports franchises haven't taken a huge loss during the more recent market collapse? Sure, they'll probably make it all back at some point and then more on top of that, but I can assure you it isn't just about team payrolls. It's about the economy in general. It's about drops in season ticket holders, receiving less advertising dollars, etc.... I understand the pitiful economy, but these owners write off all of these multi-million contracts and any other kind of loss. As bad as the economy is, just watch the line form when one of these franchises goes up for sale. None of these owners "lose" money on their franchises and most make a gigantic return on their investment.

Never would happen, Z wouldn't waive his no trade for Baltimore. I think the teams he would waive it to, are actually all options. The Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and a long shot would be the White Sox. Z would definitely waive his no trade for the White Sox but i doubt JR would take on his contract. Ozzie would probably convince them about Z's attitude. I don't believe all of these stories about cash-strapped teams (except the Cubs), but all of those teams you mentioned are supposedly maxed-out on their budget. Of course, the Mets were "cash-strapped" and then signed Bay to a contract for more than $16 million per year.

It would never happen, but how about a deal centered around Zambrano for Brian Roberts. Throw in a few other names (Pie?, prospects, etc.) and figure out the money ($54 million over 3 years for Zambrano and $40 million over 4 years for Roberts). Of course waiting for MacPhail and Angelos to approve the deal would take at least 2 years. =D>

Yeah, Davis had a solid season last year, but again, would sam Fuld be able to post similar numbers if givn the chance, and if not, would Davis be enough of an upgrade to give up anything of value? Davis is a terrific defender and has a little less average-dependant OBP than a guy like Nyjer Morgan does. He wouldn't be enough of an upgrade over Fuld to give up significant parts for him, though. And, like I said, he's a cheap, fairly productive player for the As, so they likely will want too much for him. Signing Crisp puts Davis in a "fighting for a corner OF position" situation.

Yeah but all they do on that site is reiterate rumors or post stories. They dont break any news. I dont think there is any truth to the rumor but you may never know. The only reporter i've seen comment on it has been Bruce Levine. So you can have as many fans as you want bashing rumors and even Tim Dierkes is just a blogger. When you get people like Levine, Miles, etc commenting on it, than you would listen since they get inside info. Its kind of annoying hearing SD fans because they think that for Agon, they should get four - five top prospects. Adrian Gonzalez is a great player but by no means is he the best 1st Baseman in the majors. The way some people are talking about him, they're acting as if the padres should get a better package than what was sent for Texeira. Texeira to me is a better player than Agon. I think a fair package for Agon would be two top prospects and then maybe two Lower level prospects but nothing special. The simple truth is that SD doesn't need (or necessarily want) to trade Gonzalez because he puts people in the seats and he's affordable. If anybody wants him they are going to overpay.

Rajai Davis Scott Hairston Angel Pagan Ryan Church Ryan Spilboroghs David DeJesus While some of these players might start, most of them would add versatility and strength in a platoon/pinch hitting situation.

Any trade of Zambrano would have to include a decent young starter to step into the rotation immediately.

How about a deal with the Mets: Zambrano + Berg/Stevens + Fuld/Colvin + Blanco/Lee (ss) for Reyes + Pelfrey/Maine + Pagan We'd probably have to take Perez's contract back in this situation, Mets are rather strapped for cash and can't be bringing in another $15+ mil. contract annually when they would be giving up players who all have modest to small contracts.[/quote] So much for the idea the Mets are "strapped for cash". They awaiting a physical on Jason Bay.