Cubswin11

Excellent

Good points I’m guessing the FO/coaching staff have similar thoughts and use ideas. That being said, go bring Wade back and go with super bullpen of death.

Morrow and Carl can alternate days being used until the stretch run/playoffs

He wasn’t in the bullpen full time until the way end of June, he wasn’t up until end of May and threw 6 innings between May 29th and June 5 then was gone until June 21st and up full time. But yeah I have my concerns over this move too but there’s a lot of things to like. Hopefully it’s 3 years or less and Under $30 million.

[tweet] [/tweet] [tweet] [/tweet] [tweet] [/tweet]

Yeah but you never know with injuries, if we finally develop someone, trade one of those guys off going in to their last year (probably more Hendricks or Q than anyone) or even maybe look to shift Lester to a closer/bullpen role towards the latter years of his deal. That’s a solid horsefeathering rotation though and I’d take it all day.

I’d rather have Cobb than trade anyone (Cobb + all the position players > acquired SP - any traded player(s)) I’m kinda wanting Darvish and not Cobb in my spoiled wantings at the moment.

I mean, I'd do that too but Boston wouldn't. They can sign a first baseman to add power to the lineup without having to trade Betts. Yeah I mean the thinking is they get out from Price, get their LH power bat that’s cheap, Happ can “replace” the OF that’s traded and could be Pedroia’s long-term replacement. It frees up money for them too if they’d want to say get in the Darvish, Arrieta, Lynn market. As I said there really isn’t a fit unless there’s some sort of bigger deal.

I’d do Schwarber and Happ for Price and Betts or Benintendi. Get Price back with Hickey and still sign Cobb then go 6-man rotation. But yeah don’t see a huge fit.

I get part of it could be urgency/having things set (going a little higher than comfortable on Cobb now gets it done and let’s you move to the bullpen) and maybe Darvish is not ready to sign with but if 5/80 is what it takes to get Cobb I’d rather go 6/140-150 on Darvish.

I have to think at that point you're going with Montgomery as the 6th starter. If I had to wager a guess, I think the big benefit of signing Cobb is finishing the rotation so you know the magnitude of the resources they could commit to the bullpen. You wouldn't want to trade for, say, Brad Hand, without being certain you don't need those same trade assets for the rotation(since the system isn't really deep enough for both). This makes plenty of sense and seems very reasonable

Fair enough, Liriano would also be an intriguing option. He either helps move Monty to part of a 6-man or he may even be able to make some starts himself and I think he’s a potentially elite relief option in a multi inning sense. Either way, get Cobb and can wait out the FA market and grab a guy late who doesn’t sign for the 6th man/depth role.

I keep noticing that popping up, but its just been writers insinuating it, with no quotes from anyone on the subject. If they do get Cobb, I'd suspect some small moves for additional depth. But, I don't think they'd still pursue an Archer deal or anything like that. I think it'd have been a hot topic all off season if we were doing a true 6 man. I don't think the local beat writers would be pulling it out of their ass without hearing whispers at least. They aren't smart/creative enough for that. Way too outside the box for them. Yeah agree they have to be hearing something, they aren’t creative enough and it’s kind of an out there idea to just be throwing around. These are the same guys who think a position player must be traded because there aren’t enough abs to go around even tho Maddon has proven it out the last 3 years there’s plenty. Cobb then a Bucholz, Pineda in a 1+ option year, Chacin, etc along with Monty would allow for a 6-man imo.

No I don’t find it hard to believe MLB is fine with the lowering of payroll. I was just saying if the $55 million number was true they are trying to get to that, that seems so extreme that maybe they were doing it as a function of their financing package they used to buy the team and it wasn’t purely based on just trying to run at bare bones and turn as much profit as possible. Jim Crane had no money so he lowered the Astros payroll to an embarrassing level on Opening Day 2013, only to trade off the meager assets they had during the season to save any more money. If in order to afford the team they have to lower payroll, I don't see how MLB loses, barring a Frank McCourt situation which had a lot more to do with his converting the franchise assets into personal assets to the point that he couldn't meet payroll. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing or even something MLB should step in on, they obviously know of and approved what financing arraignments were made to buy the team and would know of the ramifications if it was unconventional. I was just making a comment/observation that with such an extreme reduction of payroll I wondered if it was something brought on by a unique financing arraignment that maybe didn’t fit MLB’s rules (which we know exist but like you said may not be absolute and certainly can be changed under the right circumstances) but was allowed and with whatever financing package was arraigned it required such a reduction to meet investor/debt obligations.

That’s wild if true. It’s hard for me to see MLB allowing it (since they have rules in place that require certain liquidity/equity to debt ratios and don’t allow just any financing arraignments) but you almost have to think the new owners put some sort of unconventional financing together and they have some heavy debt service theses first few years or a balloon payment due in a few years or something that’s driving this outside your typical cheap ownership group. It's hard for you to see MLB owners allowing 1 of of 30 franchises to spend no money and in-turn lowering the total expenditure on player salaries? Sounds like their dream owner to me. Loria finished off the Expos and was rewarded for it with the Marlins with help from an interest-free loan from MLB. ETA: I don't remember the specs on the debt/equity rules, but never have I heard it alluded to as a reason a team can't lower their payroll, and ultimately their made up rules that MLB can enforce however they want. No I don’t find it hard to believe MLB is fine with the lowering of payroll. I was just saying if the $55 million number was true they are trying to get to that, that seems so extreme that maybe they were doing it as a function of their financing package they used to buy the team and it wasn’t purely based on just trying to run at bare bones and turn as much profit as possible.

That’s wild if true. It’s hard for me to see MLB allowing it (since they have rules in place that require certain liquidity/equity to debt ratios and don’t allow just any financing arraignments) but you almost have to think the new owners put some sort of unconventional financing together and they have some heavy debt service theses first few years or a balloon payment due in a few years or something that’s driving this outside your typical cheap ownership group.

Go get him, Theo https://twitter.com/christianyelich/status/939559584959676416

[tweet] [/tweet]

LOL [tweet] [/tweet]

So the Yankees will be 3-4 time repeat lux tax offenders going in to next offseason’s FA bonanza?

Yeah no way they get Harper now, Machado makes more sense if they are giving out that type of contract. This is a good outcome for us.

I’d very much be fine with this