Backtobanks

So much for the budgetary constraints of the Yankees. From MLBTR: The Yankees offered Jesus Montero straight up for Roy Halladay, according to Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star

Any interest in Byrnes as our 4th outfielder after he is officially DFAd. We'd obviously get him for the minimum. Byrnes for Silva + $4 million in 2011? :-k

I was for getting rid of the GM who we all knew would target pure garbage in order to get rid of a cheap, productive player. But, alas we couldn't do that. Bradley was traded for reasons wholly unrelated to his cost or productivity. Not sure why you're glossing over this small detail. Hendry was completely wrong in signing Bradley in the first place, but if Milton would've just played ball, collected his money, and not been a total jerk he would still be a Cub.

I was for getting rid of the GM who we all knew would target pure garbage in order to get rid of a cheap, productive player. But, alas we couldn't do that. "pure garbage" - I agree "cheap, productive player" - If you mean Bradley, he wasn't cheap or very productive. I will agree that he was more productive than Silva will be.

false harden is also 3 years younger Ha, Ha. You actually believe that Rich Harden is as good as Ben Sheets i tend to believe the truth Either way they are both very good pitchers. Wouldn't mind having either one. Over Silva? =D>

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.