Benny Rodriguez

yes?

From the contract: The first sentence states that the Cubs can't erect any barrier that would obstruct the rooftop views. The last sentence, were it to be interpreted as you suggest the rooftops might, would be redundant. To read it in that manner would be to say, "Any obstruction of our views is not allowed. Also, any obstruction that the government OKs is not allowed." Draw up a venn diagram. It would be pointless to read/write it that way. Seems pretty clear to me that an thing approved by the government is not a violation. If the word "in" was inserted, you could interpret it otherwise. I agree the "in" would shift it toward rooftops. It just is poorly worded on both sides. I find it hard to think the rooftops put their entire business future in the hands of a landmark status, and the always up and up Chicago government.

they were saying that last night but other sources say the details won't be released until the physical

How? is he batting third also?

probably a year away at least..I think we are with you on that one!

The value in Hammel or other signings is the ability to flip them later in the year. Not how many wins they might add. It's hard to argue with FO on this over the last 2 years. I think it's not impossible to think that anyone on the staff will be dealt. I really don't see Wood going anywhere, but all others could be gone. Which is another reason we might still sign multiple starters.

question to go with bold predictions. what would the vesting dates for guys that are close but haven't been up yet- Baez, Alcantara, even Almora.. just wondering if that timeline might be more important than production as far as when they come up.

At some point we have to address the top of our rotation. I just don't see the top tier guys coming free except maybe Price. At some we will have to make a choice as to who will be dealt, probably from our glut of middle infielders. It's not likely we can get a top guy without using our prospects. On the other hand we could be a contender with what should be a solid rotation (when the kids are ready), and then find a rental guy to get us over. It's just a crap shoot to see if it's a "Garza-Dempster" type or a "Greinke-C.C" type from a few years back.

Both those guys are very skilled but much like Tanaka, the characteristic that makes people start talking about a 400 million dollar contract is their age. If Trout is a free agent at 26, he can easily expect a 10 year deal probably more because of that age. They were talking about Cano getting 300, but he was 31, clearly not even the yankees wanted to pay him 30 mil a year into his 40's. Economically, Harper and Trout have 1 chance to get that type of super payday. Certainly they would still get paid if they are 31-32 but not like they can at 26. The last time a player of this caliber became a free agent at that age, AROD signed the richest contract in sports history 10/250 mil. I don't know how you don't hit the free market just to see what is out there. Certainly you could say of their current teams offer even 30 mil, how do they not sign. On the other hand, you could be looking at another 10 mil a year on the open market- how do you not test that? We are talking an extra 100 mil possibly. I'm sure Boras is watching Trout closely, because Harper being a year later he'll base his negotiations around what Trout gets. Also consider that on that extra 100 mil alone, that would be an extra 5 to 10 mil for the agent, another reason they'll test the market. Obviously they have to continue their play, and stay healthy. They are free agents a year apart, Trout after 2017, and Harper after 2018

Obviously small sample but 3 starts, 15 innings, 9 hits, 3.60 era, 0.867 whip- I'd call that promise. Were we expecting 3 complete game shut outs right off the DL? It certainly gave hope that he would return to his career form of low 4.00 era.

We sign Baker to a 1 year 5 mil contract last year knowing he won't be able to pitch for some time. When he comes back, he shows promise. Then we can't beat the Mariners 1 million dollar minor league contract (could reach 3.25 with incentives), when he actually can pitch this year. Even though we are still looking for a starter. Seems like it could have been a nice, low cost deal with little lost if he doesn't work out..a lot better deal for us than last year, when we had more pitching.

First, they are simply an example of what could be out there. Second, with the money that is being talked about, I have little doubt that at least one is out there and really think both will. I don't see Washington ponying up 30 mil a year for one guy, especially with Strasberg being a potential free agent in 2017. If you are Trout, how do you not look at the open market with talk of $400 million deal out there?

Thanks for clearing that up!

I have a problem/question with the wording. I really can see it being taken two ways. I have to say it is very poorly worded for both sides. The part that says" any expansion ok'd by the government shall not be a violation of the agreement". Ok, they Cubs feel that means if the government ok's it, it's not considered a violation. I can see the rooftops saying that it means any expansion even ok'd by government can't be in violation of the contract. To me the wording (if Cubs are right) should have said= any expansion ok'd by the government shall not be "considered" a violation of this contract.

Baez develops and is brought up to play ss, Castro is moved to centerfield. Olt wins the 3B spot and is solid. Alcantara takes over 2b after deadline deals Bryant takes over a corner outfield spot Lake is solid in left (ok, that one is from my heart!) at least until Almora is ready Soler and Vogelbach make strides and will soon push the guys at the major league level I do see Castro in the OF some day. He has an amazing break/drop and range on fly balls. He could also concentrate a little more on his offense out there. I can see him as a shallow playing CF that can go get it. On the other hand, not sure how it might look if all 3 OF's are converted(recently) from other spots.