davearm2

where do i sign? he's virtually guaranteed to be worth more than 5 million per every single year of the deal. Yeah that's a much different tune than the $50-60M we've heard. That said, I wonder how many minor league prospects there are around baseball that a team like the Cubs would be willing to cut a $30M check to acquire. For all intents and purposes, that's what Cespedes is. Come on now, for the sake of your arguement we'd be talking an instant top 10 prospect do its not like wed be shelling out for Marquez Smith. Hey don't misunderstand. I'm all for going after Cespedes. I was asking a more general question about what the cash value is of a typical good/great minor league prospect. How many guys in MiLB would you fork over $30M for? Is it 10? 100? More? Personally, my SWAG is that it'd be on the low end of that range.

Good stuff sneakypower and questionmarkgrace. Thanks for posting it.

That's all kinds of goofy. So a Canadian broadcast conglomerate is dictating the Jays' baseball operations? Maybe next they'll ask Jose Bautista to manage their 4G rollout. They also own the team. Yes I know.

That's all kinds of goofy. So a Canadian broadcast conglomerate is dictating the Jays' baseball operations? Maybe next they'll ask Jose Bautista to manage their 4G rollout.

So a guy like Welington Castillo? Really? I'd need bonafide star potential. The appropriate discount factor for prospects would have to be pretty large. I surely don't need to tell you that the bust rate is quite high, even amongst guys that seem solid at AAA.

I never really considered the possibility that Darvish could make more money staying in Japan, if he doesn't get a strong offer from the winning bidder. I kinda assumed he'd have very little leverage with whichever club wins the posting. Any particular reason he'll stop making money off the field after leaving Japan? It seems safe to assume whatever marketing dollars he's making from Japanese companies will decline sharply if he leaves for the US. I don't see him replacing those dollars here, either. What company in the States is going to throw big money at Yu Darvish? His image is worth squat here. I'd bet that the assumption his Japanese marketing will dry up is completely false, though. He could stand to make more marketing money in Japan if he does well here. I'd bet that Ichiro has raked in marketing money from Japan during his time in the states. I guess I could see that. Maybe disassociating from Nippon Ham will actually make Darvish stand out more as an individual star in Japan, which naturally would be beneficial for his marketing profile. It's certainly plausible. I still don't see him being offered much in the way of endorsement opportunities here in the states, though. His Q scoreg would be zilch.

where do i sign? he's virtually guaranteed to be worth more than 5 million per every single year of the deal. Yeah that's a much different tune than the $50-60M we've heard. That said, I wonder how many minor league prospects there are around baseball that a team like the Cubs would be willing to cut a $30M check to acquire. For all intents and purposes, that's what Cespedes is.

The answer to your 1st question is as long as guys sign before July 2nd of next year, they are exempt from the IFA signing budget. This includes Jorge Soler and all unsigned Latin American prospects that didn't sign earlier in the year. Same thing with Pac Rim guys, other Cubans. Everyone. Answer to your 2nd question is Cubans 23 or older are exempt from the IFA spending limits as well. What I hope this means for the Cubs is spending bigtime on what's left out there. Soler, Concepcion, and the 4 or 5 big bonus Latin Americans that I know haven't signed yet. Thanks davell. Sounds like Cespedes is under no constraints. Guys like Soler have to sign before July 2. I wonder if there might be a rash of Cuban defections in the next few months, guys trying to beat the deadline. Not that defecting is easy to pull off. Curious if the Cuban national team has any trips on the calendar.

I never really considered the possibility that Darvish could make more money staying in Japan, if he doesn't get a strong offer from the winning bidder. I kinda assumed he'd have very little leverage with whichever club wins the posting. Any particular reason he'll stop making money off the field after leaving Japan? It seems safe to assume whatever marketing dollars he's making from Japanese companies will decline sharply if he leaves for the US. I don't see him replacing those dollars here, either. What company in the States is going to throw big money at Yu Darvish? His image is worth squat here.

Was it ever fully resolved if/how the new CBA impacts Cespedes' negotiating position? AFAIK, issue #1 was when the new rules take effect. Issue #2 was whether Cespedes' age exempted him from some of the new spending limits. I don't recall ever seeing definitive answers on these questions.

It's a great point, I may be way off on this, but I have a hunch he is working to get Garza moved for a 1B (perhaps Rangers, Moreland) and or even Yankees and take on Tex so Yanks can get Fielder?? Hopefully something similar is in works so we don't have the next 5 years of less than .500 ball. It is a great point. Cub fans had better get used to being in the dark on this stuff. Until further notice, media reports are totally unreliable.

I found this particularly interesting from that article: I never really considered the possibility that Darvish could make more money staying in Japan, if he doesn't get a strong offer from the winning bidder. I kinda assumed he'd have very little leverage with whichever club wins the posting.

If this happens, then the Cubs need to get really serious about prying Justin Smoak away from Seattle. Easier said than done. We don't exactly have much in the form of moveable assets and The Mariners aren't going to just say since we have Fielder please take Smoak off our hands for Blake DeWitt and Casey Coleman. As far as attainable targets go, Barton might actually be the best bet in terms of affordability. Three days ago you called Barton "a very poor man's Carlos Pena" and questioned whether he would really be a better option than LaHair. But hey that was three days ago, right? Or maybe it just goes to show how thin the market is beyond Fielder. Do I really need to list the other options again? Barton is essentially the 1st base equivalent of Ian Stewart and there's at least the glimmer of hope that he can be a star, and if we could get him for a package similar to what we got Stewart for, if Fielder isn't an option may as well go with him rather than overpaying for something else and watch and see what become available in the mean time. I think Rob is wondering what has happened this week to change your perspective. The market hasn't gotten any thinner.

If they don't make serious run at him they are punting 2012. So if the Mariners or Blue Jays offer 9/225, what do you do? Punt or sign a stupid contract? At those terms you have to let it go. Having said that, I think you could put together a 5-6 year contract with a higher AAV and vesting options he'd likely take if he wants to come here. 9/225 is $25M per year. What AAV did you have in mind to top that?

That's a shame. It was always a relief to see Towles coming up with runners on.

This is already in place in the NFL, I believe. I recall that the league wanted Chad Johnson to buy up all his old jerseys when he switched his name to "Ochocinco". Apparently there's a certain date by which name/number changes have to be submitted to the league, before merchandise production for the coming season begins. You miss the deadline - you buy the stuff.

Or, the holdup is Fielder/Boras looking for a 10-year deal.

3/36 with an option seems about right to me. Seems a bit padded due to the thin market.

You don't know what mediocre means. My understanding is an average everyday player is worth about 2 WAR. Fielder has been worth less than 2 WAR twice. I interchanged "average" and "mediocre". So are you arguing the semantics of "average" versus "mediocre"?

Bradley was an extreme high risk/high reward proposition. The Cubs obviously wound up losing badly on the deal, but even in hindsight the roll of the dice they took is defensible. Soriano was a case of overpaying for the best bat available, warts and all. Fielder is also the best bat available. He also has warts. In the end, just like with Soriano, a reasonable 5-year deal would make sense. As the dollars and years climb, it becomes more and more difficult to justify.

What's curious is that folks point to all of the ways Soriano is different than Fielder, and I look at the same things and see them as similarities. There's been lots of talk about how the last few years of a Fielder contract will probably be lousy like Soriano's, but yet there's a pervasive "who cares" attitude now. Fielder's mediocre production in his down years suggests that he's also non-elite. Soriano was 31 and fit/athletic; Fielder is 28 and overweight/non-athletic. They are likely at similar places in their aging curve, despite the age discrepancy. Both guys are defensive liabilities. Soriano had foreseeable contact problems; Fielder has foreseeable batspeed problems. Etc. etc. "Fielder is not Soriano" is often stated on here; I'm not convinced they're all that different.

My problem is with the tone of Mrs. Pujols' comments. She made it abundantly clear that they really wanted to stay, had no intentions to leave, and that moving is very difficult for a number of reasons. That obviously begs the question, well then why didn't you stay, if that's what you wanted? Her implication is, the reason they didn't stay is because Cardinals somehow took that option away from them. That I find laughable. If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'", then I wouldn't have an issue, since that's what really happened. They wanted to stay, but Pujols also wanted to get paid. The only way your argument makes any sense is if you honestly think she's talking like money didn't matter to them. She isn't, and she makes it very clear in the interview that money was the main factor. From the money standpoint, no, St. Louis took that option away from them. The decision to stay or leave St. Louis didn't occur in a vacuum where the decision was only based on the desire to stay or leave. Ah, now we're finally getting somewhere. They wanted to stay, AND they wanted to get paid. In the end, they wanted to get paid MORE than they wanted to stay. Fine, no problem whatsoever. Just don't be whining about how stressful and burdensome it is that you couldn't have your cake and eat it too.

Let's see a show of hands of everyone that believes the Cards' best offer to Pujols was a 5 year deal.

The defensive metrics should indeed be taken with a grain of salt, but everything we're talking about on the offensive side is theoretical too.

My problem is with the tone of Mrs. Pujols' comments. She made it abundantly clear that they really wanted to stay, had no intentions to leave, and that moving is very difficult for a number of reasons. That obviously begs the question, well then why didn't you stay, if that's what you wanted? Her implication is, the reason they didn't stay is because Cardinals somehow took that option away from them. That I find laughable. If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'", then I wouldn't have an issue, since that's what really happened.