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.

He's going green....

You forgot Tanaka might be a free agent in 2018 too. Of course signing Trout, Harper, or Tanaka for $30+ million per year for 7-10 years means you have to have an owner and FO willing to spend that much. Also, you need to have a team attractive enough to attract the top FAs. Good point, you can throw that name in the mix too...the idea stays the same. We are probably better off not tied up with older guys losing their value , when we could add a serious arm or bat to put us over the top(hopefully). It would be nice to have a guy like that now, but as painful as this year looks, even with one of those guys, we aren't a play-off team. Realistically we're not even .500 without every thing working out as well or better than we hope. I also think it gives us time to figure out exactly who is going to develop, and where we need the help.

If we do deal Shark, I think we have to get at least 2 arms, and one needs to be a top guy, that is near ready (2015-ish) to replace what we have in Shark. It doesn't make sense to take even good prospects, that are a long way from being ready. We have shark for 2 more years, he is legitimately a 2 or 3...we need to get at least that in return with a bonus arm or arms! As far as trades, he is our last chip with high value unless we decide to dig into prospects (or Castro/Rizzo). We have some guys who can be traded, I just don't see anyone else getting a serious ML pitcher, or a stockpile of pitching prospects. By the way KC is loaded with pitching prospects(10 of their top 20 overall), several are ready now . This type of trade may fit into their scheme. They get a very good ML starter under control for a few years to replace Santana at a lower cost. KC is hoping to compete again, they have cost restraints, and probably lose Shields after this year. They could trade one of the top 2 prospects, along with another later arriving arm and not miss them at all.

If all those guys get moved I don't see them getting close to 75 wins We were just projected to have the worst record in baseball for 2014 without the sell off. I think 75 with no notable additions is not realistic at all. We are coming off 66 wins, I don't see how what we added, compared to what we lost, adds up to 10 more wins even before the sell-off Not surprisingly we are projected for the worst offense in the league

If all those guys get moved I don't see them getting close to 75 wins I was puzzled by that too. Only thing I can think he means is that he thinks Javy and Bryant will be up and going straight beast mode in the second half. we were just projected to have the worst record in baseball without a sell-off. I'm figuring we hover remotely close to .500(within 7-9 games) and sell off late in July. I see no dropoff in losing Russell or Villanueva and a gain moving from Barney to Javy and from Schierholtz to KB. Losing Shark and going to Hendricks is a dropoff, but I can see playing within 5-7 games of .500 over the last 2 months. Which puts us at somewhere between 12-16 games under .500 for the year. Buth yeah, I do feel as if Javy and KB both get 60 games in the majors and do very well in their stint.

We got one top-100 pitching prospect, a guy who can't see and two AAAA guys. I like the return, but it's nothing like we were talking about getting for him back in 2012. You can't judge the deal against what you think they could have gotten, because unless you were in the room you don't know what is real. Judge the deal on the deal. We traded a couple months of Matt Garza from a team, going nowhere for some solid prospects. If Olt, Edwards or Grimm make it, then we are much better off. High end, we could have a starting 3b, a starter and solid reliever (maybe 2 starters), worst case= all bomb and we missed out on maybe 5 wins from Garza.

I don't think there is anyway we can sign both Schrezer and Bailey next off season. First, Detroit had made moves to be able to sign him, I don't think they'll let him get away. Second, with his age(5 months younger) and stats, I am pretty sure he expects more than what Sanchez got, which probably means around 20 mil a year and Bailey won't be far behind that. Both are probably looking for many years (at least 5), Bailey at 27 could get 7 or more. It would nice to see us drop close to 40 mil a year on a couple of starters but I don't see it. I think we hope Bailey is around, and we can get him. Then hope Shark and Wood both become what we hope. Then with Pierce, plus the FO ability to find solid back end guys we could be pretty solid.

As far as you will be available, it sounds like Schrezer and Lester are pretty sure it resign with their teams. But we are talking a true TOR guy. Cain had huge drop off to 4.00 era last season, depends on what he comes up with this year but you have to worry. Masterson career 4.03 era, had a great year but then he was almost a 5.00 the season before that. Hammels is 2018 with a team option for 2019 when he'll be 36. So Bailey could be the only target as a top end guy. He's young enough and is trending up as far as performance. Mat Latos is younger(26) and has been better, and he is free after 2015. I'm sure cincy will only be able to sign 1 if any of them.

Two things: 1. Most profitble team made 32 mil last year. Although short term it would be nice to see that spent on some players, but what good long term investments were out there to help now and when the kids hit the show? Every player, save for maybe Choo has question marks. The offensive guys are older,were seemingly overpaid, and for far too long. The pitchers have been up and down, and have some age on their arms. Draft compensation is attached to all but Arroyo-who at 36 wouldn't make any sense. So they could easily spend the 32 mil to help us win a handful more games this season, but is it worth it to hurt lose a high pick in a very deep draft and to have less money to spend when you are ready to compete. Future free agents=Mike Trout 2018, Bryce Harper 2019 would you rather have the 20- 22 mil that is being paid to a late 30's Ellsbury or Choo OR have that and more to sign one of these players that will be 26 she they are on the market. It would be nice to have that flexibility. 2. As much as nice as it would have been to get Tanaka, spending that much on one unproven guy (with upside) is very risky. You may have dropped on 22 mil a year on a guy who isn't an ace, maybe not a 2 and has thrown a ton of pitches in his young career. Keep in mind, if they signed Tanaka to that and he isn't as good a Wood or Shark...what do they ask for when it's their time? If you go after another free agent pitcher down the road, (like a Price or Schrezer) aren't they going to start at what you paid Tanaka and go up from there? I know we are looking at even more money from TV and other streams in the future, but that will just give us more to spend. We will also have a better idea of what prospects are going to develop and exactly where we need outside help.

If a trade does happen, it has got to be for a couple of top arms. Missing out on Tanaka makes getting this right probably the key to getting overt the top in the near future. We have so few arms in the system, No clear "ace" type picture in the near future and outside of maybe Price, there is no one out there on the market anytime soon, that we can even buy to get an an ace. If we don't maximize this asset, either on the field or through a trade, it could really derail the team even if our offensive talent develops. On the other hand, there are a lot of arms that will be there in the draft, I have to think we won't pass on one this time around. However at #4 I'm not sure we can get a "close to ready" arm. It would be nice to get Rondon from NC State and there are a couple of others that might be similar to Gray last year, but part of where they fall will depend on their seasons. With Houston and Miami at #1 and #2 it looks like they will grab the top 2 pitchers. We can hope 1 will grab the high school kid.