Backtobanks

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.

How about a deal with the Mets: Zambrano + Berg/Stevens + Fuld/Colvin + Blanco/Lee (ss) for Reyes + Pelfrey/Maine + Pagan

Actually, many people here were against unloading the farm for Granderson. But I guess sine a few people wanted to, that should apply to the entire board, right? Did I say everybody wanted to trade a bunch of prospects for Granderson? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the sentiment for trading 3 good prospects for Granderson was pretty much favorable among a majority of the posters. No, but you made it seem like there were a lot, when there really wasn't. My bad, if I misinterpreted your point. That said, trading three good prospects does not equal unloading the farm. 3 good prospects (depending on who they are) does equal unloading the farm if you have a lousy farm system.

Decades? Did you say decades, as in the plural form of decade? Any GM that were to use the word "decades" when asked how long it would take to restock the farm should never have gotten the job in the first place. I trust that you are aware that a decade is 10 years and decades are 20+. I'm not saying that a GM should say "decades", but when you look at the reality of the Cubs (and many other teams) and see how long their farm system goes between an influx of productive players for 3-4 consecutive years, "decades" is not too far off.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-)) reed johnson should never get a start against right-handed pitching. evar. And yet posters were willing to give up half the farm system for Granderson and insisted he isn't a platoon player. Actually Johnson had an on-again-off-again career against RHP. Bad in 2009 and 2007, but fair in 2008 ( .280/.323/.398/.721) and great in 2006 (.317/.370/.498/.869). Actually, many people here were against unloading the farm for Granderson. But I guess sine a few people wanted to, that should apply to the entire board, right? Did I say everybody wanted to trade a bunch of prospects for Granderson? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the sentiment for trading 3 good prospects for Granderson was pretty much favorable among a majority of the posters.

I think you are making this a black/white either/or thing. I am not suggesting that the Cubs go on a youth movement or purge payroll just to save a buck. I am suggesting that t current core is MOST probably not ever going to win a WS without some immediate infusion or quality youth or increasing payroll. I am suggesting that the next contracts ARam and DLee sign will be bad contracts because they will be declining in value through those contracts. I am just suggesting that if we can get good value for Z, Lee and ARam we should take it. If we can then use the money saved to either replace them or upgrade somewhere else with contracts that will not be bad contracts. To be honest with you I would be all for keeping them and resigning them if we didnt already have several contracts that are unmovable and low producing. I guess what I am saying is that it is obvious to me that the current thing is not going to work. Of course I want to win a WS, not be above average with good marketing I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than re-sign Lee & ARam after these contracts to have them through their declining years, you'd rather move them now and sign someone like Holliday who is more likely to be productive throughout the duration of his contract. it's not necessarily about dumping our current core and rebuilding purely through the farm. It is about finding deals that help the overall talent level of the organization and then investing the savings in players that will still see more of their prime years than the current guys. right? It all sounds good in theory, but who replaces the production of Lee and ARam right away? We all have fun making fantasy trades, signing FAs for less than market value, and overestimating our prospects and the ones we're getting back in trades, but I'm sure it's not as easy as all of us think it is. As all of us who follow the Cubs know, it takes decades to build a really productive farm system. Signing FAs who are very productive gets you back into the high price/long term committment problem we're in right now. Let's not forget that any productive FA is going to be on the radar screen of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc. so you can bet they won't come cheap.

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books. So basically what you are saying is that Ricketts is going to continue the Tribunes "strive for above average and good marketing" Well this sale was disappointing. I guess it's easy for us to tell a successful businessman how to spend his money, but trading off all of your stars in an entertainment venue probably isn't the best way to make a profit. Even San Diego is rumored to be holding onto Gonzalez until the deadline because they "do have to put people in the seats". Hopefully some of the prospects can start making it into the ML so that we can see rebuilding taking place while we contend. In the next 1-3 years, we might be able to have young replacements for players like DLee, Aram, Theriot, Fukudome, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, etc. and use that money to fill in the right FA or two to stay competitive. So the options are: 1. Stay average-to-above average while integrating younger players into the lineup or 2. Go all out in an effort to trade our stars (and get out of NTCs) and suck for a few years while we hope that the prospects we received will take us to the promised land. Some of the posters might want to choose #2, but I would think the successful businessman will choose #1.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-)) reed johnson should never get a start against right-handed pitching. evar. And yet posters were willing to give up half the farm system for Granderson and insisted he isn't a platoon player. Actually Johnson had an on-again-off-again career against RHP. Bad in 2009 and 2007, but fair in 2008 ( .280/.323/.398/.721) and great in 2006 (.317/.370/.498/.869).

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-))

Valverde is good, but I'm not sure anyone wants him @ $20 million over 4 years.

I think it is possible, not sure I would call it feasible. I think it is much more feasible to say the Cubs are an 85 win team without much room for improvement with the current core and salary structure. I think it is much more feasible to come to the understanding that the current core is mostly in their prime to declining years. So unless an immediate impact of talent comes from the system or influx of talent through FA, I think it is most realistic to say the Cubs will be declining in the next couple of years.(as shown by last years performance) While I agree that the "current core is mostly in their prime to declining years", I do expect rebound years from Soriano, Soto, Fontenot, and Marmol. Also, DLee and ARam haven't shown any signs of slowing down and Zambrano (while still reasonably young) still hasn't been the big winner that everyone has expected.

I like Calero too, but when there were rumblings about getting a CF and a reliever in the same deal, I thought about KC with DeJesus and Cruz.