Brett

I kind of worry ("worry" is probably the wrong word) that the huge amount of smoke late Wednesday and yesterday, including rumors that the Cubs had asked for best and final offers, were all a part of a planned leak, designed to pressure the various teams in discussions to amp things up quickly ... rather than being reflective of an actual amping up by those teams. In other words, given how quiet the Cubs' side of things has been this offseason, I'm always a little suspicious when multiple sources report the same rumor at the same time (and that includes my report, which came from a Cubs team source). That's not say it's BAD that the Cubs might use the media this way (it's clever and can be useful). I'm just concerned, as a fan, that maybe the Garza talks aren't as advanced as they seemed just a day ago.

Could well be. It was an extremely rough estimate, and one that was a bit tough to make considering the massive changes in those expenses since last year. It depends on what you consider organizational/operating expenses, but, you're right, I'm probably on the low side. The overall point, however, stands, particularly when considering how VERY conservative I was on the revenue side (the Cubs cleared $250 million in revenue in 2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)). The money is there to spend, and there are only so many places it can be spent. Cespedes and Soler, at this point, make as much sense as any other place.

Something to keep in mind on a possible Dempster trade - given his age and decline, he's not likely to be the kind of player you'd offer a one-year deal at the average of the top 125 salaries at the end of the year (it was so much easier when we could say "offer arbitration" - anyone yet come up with a shorthand for the new compensation offer?) in order to get draft pick compensation should he go elsewhere. I point that out not only because it impacts his value in trade (lower, since no compensation would be forthcoming after 2012), but also because it means he can be held until mid-season and dealt at the deadline (to get compensation, a guy has to be with the team for the entire season). That is a really convoluted way of saying the Cubs will probably be better served hanging onto Dempster until midseason before looking to deal him, since his value will not be reduced by virtue of not spending the entire season with a single team (because he probably wasn't going to net his team draft pick compensation anyway). I'm told he's open to being traded if the Cubs ask him to accept a trade, but I can only imagine he'd be even more open to it if it was just for a few/couple months at the end of the year. Injury or continued ineffectiveness are obviously the downside risks. But, hey, maybe he starts the year out much better than he has been in recent years, and a couple teams in the race lose a starting pitcher or two, and his value is higher mid-season than it is now.

How likely is he to stick there? I don't know if I'd care to have Sappelt play there as a regular on a key team, but if he's just covering until someone else is ready, say Brett, or if he's just spot-starting/platooning, he's fine. For what it's worth, Goldstein says Sappelt can't play CF in the Majors. Even if that's true, obviously, the deal is still quite awesome.

Rizzo and Simpson sounds a bit light to me, too.

I'm that blogger. It was just a theory (though the Reds' beat writer for the Enquirer thinks Marshall and the Reds could indeed be negotiating an extension) to explain why the names have been under such a thorough lock and key (relative to other deals like this). The names are unknown, perhaps, because they're undecided pending the extension talks. Makes some sense as an explanation to me. But, just a theory. That's all.

Lingering WWII resentment? :shock: =D>

Not sure how much can really be put into the Dale Sveum statements - he said the same thing at the Winter Meetings. There are plenty of ways to talk around "interest in a guy," one of which is to say you haven't reached out to the player (which, technically, means nothing - you'd be reaching out to the agent until the very end of the process). I also tend to think that IF Theo and Jed want Fielder, they're going to tell Sveum to temper his public comments about how awesome Fielder is and how much he wants Fielder on the team. Can't help at the bargaining table.

I guess Craig Counsell thinks he can still find a job playing ball.

You don't have to be desperate. Just thirsty. Or is that just me?

Trying to figure out signs that he couldn't say. Caught wind of a meeting between Cubs brass and Boras? And he can't say either because he's not sure it's about Fielder, or because a source asked him not to say any more than that?

For around $60m plus another $50-70m to sign him I hope we didn't. 6/$130? Yeah, if I had to. And all I'd take away for certain from what the source told me is that the Cubs bid quite a bit. He had no idea what other teams bid.

Good to know (seriously) - but that's just one of three "sources" (and I use that term very loosely) saying the same thing. I'm emphasizing as strongly as I can, I tweeted that - did not report it on the site, because it was way, way too thin - because folks wanted to know if/what I was hearing. So I gave the "huge grain of salt" here's what I'm hearing tweet. I figure that was a fine middle road.

ha... Brett is trying to get hits. :-) Nope. No link to the site. :) I figure people want to know what I've heard, even if it's reeeeeally thin. All I know is that the Cubs have been planning a big bid all along, and now there are anonymous insidery types on Twitter saying the Cubs and Jays had the big bids, and the Jays probably won. It could be total BS. Just letting folks know in case they can't help but be curious (and want to give in to confirmation bias).

Still better than liquid.

If we're going for injury reclamation projects, I'm trying to acquire Kendrys Morales. I dunno man. Ike is like 3-4 years younger and Kendrys has only managed one full year in the majors. Then again, Morales is a non-tender candidate - he could come for only the cost of a contract (a couple million bucks, perhaps).

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons. Plus whatever compensation they would get for him by offering arbitration under the new system. Or they could sign him to an extension. It's not like we're talking about a 35 year old guy who only has 2 more seasons left in him. Okay, he's an asset for two years plus draft pick compensation plus the right to negotiate with him. That still doesn't add up to a long-term asset to me. He no more counts as a 2014 asset than Zach Greinke does at this point. Not to mention the fact that, even if things go swimmingly with Garza in 2012 and 2013, he'll be awfully expensive come 2014. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with signing a Fielder and trading a Garza, depending on the return.

Yeah, I'd say 6/$90M (total) is about as high as you can reasonably go, given the uncertainty. Maybe $6/100M. Given the way Japanese players tend to hit "The Wall" after two years in MLB, the risk that the latter half of the contract could be a blight is not insignificant.

I got a lotta problems with you people...

I really dislike Craig Counsell as a player. As coach, I'm sure he'll be fine.

So, who had DeJesus going to the Cubs?

Ogando is a really interesting one. Converted a starter in his late 20s upon arriving in the bigs. He's already 28, but isn't even eligible for arbitration for another couple years - talk about having a guy's peak years for cheap. On the other hand, he's still not quite as "established" as you'd like a 28-year-old to be. How exactly do you value a player like that? Roll the dice, I guess. If the Rangers offered something like Ogando, Moreland, and Olt, I don't see how the Cubs could justify saying no.

Ricketts must have decided to do a media swing, because the Tribune has a separate interview-y type article on him today. The high point was Ricketts' confirmation that adding a big piece like Fielder or Pujols is up to Theo: That could mean a number of things when you break it down, but, once again, Ricketts is saying the right things.

Obviously Greg's role was limited (and, for some reason, mysterious), but it was nice having his brain in the organization. And there was always a hope that some day, down the road, he might be available to, and interested in, taking on a more full-time role with the Cubs. So, I'm a little bummed.

You are looking at this as the guy who started the site, of course you know the difference. But you are miniscule, and most people will only have vaguely heard about some bleacher something or other site that sucks balls. So they will lump you in with them and it's your fault, not theirs, for thinking people should automatically distinguish your site as valid. It's not a matter of people not being able to read the words. It's the fact that they are incredibly similar names, and one of them is much larger and very much regarded as junk. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, but you're fooling yourself if you think the only reason they would be identified together is because some careless readers don't automatically know the difference between bleacher nation and bleacher report. FWIW, I can never remember which one is which :shrug: This is all helpful feedback - even if I don't decide to change the name (I think the damage caused by the confusion is a bit overstated (including by me), and I think the damage caused by changing the name is understated), it's very valuable to have these things in the back of my mind. In my defense, my original comment had nothing to do with requiring or assuming that people automatically know the difference between "Bleacher Report" (crap) and "Bleacher Nation" (hopefully moderately useful Cubs site). It's about people having the link that says "Bleacher Nation" right in front of them and saying "Bleacher Report sucks. Don't go there." That is an issue of people not reading words. The situation more like what you're describing, when automatic recognition is the problem, is where a person sees a Bleacher Nation link and says "Bleacher Nation sucks, don't go there" when they were actually thinking of Bleacher Report (because, as you note, all they know is "Bleacher something or other sucks, and this is probably that Bleacher something or other.") And, in that situation, you're spot on - I'm screwed a bit, unless I change the name (or continue to do my best to get the word out where confusion is occurring). To dave's point: that kind of cuts both ways. If you're vaguely aware of both, but haven't become a "reader" of Bleacher Nation (i.e., a regular visitor, who, by definition, knows the difference between the two), it's hard to imagine a scenario where a different name would have somehow made you a reader. The name confusion issue is about eyes that never come to the site in the first place (because they think, "Bleacher Report? I'd never click onto that crap"), not about eyes that have come to the site and decided it wasn't for them. I didn't mean to hijack the thread into a discussion on branding. A genuine thanks for the thoughts.