dew1679666265

That would make more sense if true and what I was thinking was the case. Thus, it would potentially remain more beneficial to a team to trade for someone on the Cubs rather than select him in the Rule 5, since they'd have complete control over the player (assuming he's not selected) and wouldn't have to keep him in the majors all year.

Maybe I'm just having a period of lack of reading comprehension, but does that rule forbid a team from trading for another team's minor leaguer and leaving that player off the 40 man roster? For instance, a team trades for Ryan Flaherty and does not place him on the 40 man. He'd still be eligible for the Rule 5 draft, but would otherwise be under the complete control of the acquiring team. The way I read that didn't strike me as forbidding that. Am I wrong?

I've never seen that rule and can't find it anywhere. If it is accurate then that changes my view, but I can't confirm that with any link I've looked at.

Jackson, like Rhee and Antigua are virtually untradeable before the Rule 5 but otherwise it would be a good deal. I wonder if they'd consider Casey Coleman or Alberto Cabrera. McNutts out of the question and I'd prefer not move Struck for him. I don't think any of the Rule 5 guys are untradeable prior to the draft. If you select a Rule 5 guy in the draft, you have to save a 40 man roster spot for him and you have to keep him on the 25 man roster all year. However, if you trade for him prior to the draft, you can keep him in the minors, let him develop some more, and have complete control over him. There's a lot of value there.

Headley's a better OBP guy (.323 for Stewart, .343 for Headley) and while Stewart has a better SLG, he's been playing in Coors while Headley has been playing in PetCo. That my not mean anything, but it has to be considered. As you noted, Headley is also seen as a much better defender at third than Stewart - for what it's worth, Headley has a 7.8 career UZR/150 while Stewart has a career 2.3 UZR/150. While the numbers aren't wildly better for Headley, I really like the better OBP and defense and then when you mix in that Headley showed clear improvement in most areas in 2011 (higher BB%, cut his K%) while Stewart floundered Headley is a much more attractive option. With Stewart, there's sizable doubt about just how good he'll be next year, whereas with Headley you pretty well know what you're going to get at the least and there's sizable room for improvement as he turns 28 and gets out of PetCo.

I don't like this move, but at the same time I don't dislike it. On one hand I think the money could be better spent elsewhere other than a marginally better Marlon Byrd, but on the other hand he could be a solid addition if we do end up trading one or both of Byrd/Soriano. I'm interested to see the ensuing moves to see how DeJesus fits in to the overall picture. That will probably determine whether I think it's a good move or an unnecessary one.

Possible, though certainly not as a headliner. I'd guess something like McNutt/Lake/Colvin might at least come close. Not that familiar with Josh Byrnes, though, so I don't know if he'd value Colvin at all.

I really don't think the difference is going to be 8-10 million. I'm expecting Jackson to get something similar to a Dempster contract (4/52+) and I think Wilson's price will lower a bit more to something like 5/90. That'd be about a $5 million difference in AAV at most. If Wilson's contract is bigger than that, I have no interest in him either. As for the numbers, those are definitely interesting numbers you posted, however Jackson only strikes out about 6.8-7.5 guys per 9 innings, while Wilson is above 8 K/9. Wilson's WAR numbers have been better as well and he's shown considerable improvement from year one as a starter to year two.

The problem with looking for consistency with Wilson is that he was a reliever until the 2010 season and relievers, no matter how good, are generally very inconsistent. You have a couple or three bad outings and your overall numbers are disproportionately affected. So we don't know if he would have been more consistent earlier as a starter or not, but we know Jackson has not been consistent yet as he enters his age 28/29 season. And I did acknowledge that if we could get Jackson for something like 3/36, I might be ok with it. If Theo/Jed decide to pursue him up to that point, I won't complain about it. However, everything in this market and in free agency in general points to Jackson getting much more than that - something like a Dempster contract or bigger. That's far too much for me. As long as the price stays low, go ahead and pursue him, though. The point about Stewart being cheap is the key, though. I'm not opposed to signing Jackson if we could get him at the same price as Stewart - in fact I'd love that deal. Problem is, as you acknowledged, Jackson is going to be far more expensive and carry far more risk with him (because of the contract) than Stewart and that's the point that invalidates the comparison. I'd have no interest in Stewart if we had to pay him real money, just like I have no interest in Jackson if we have to go above something like 3/36. The key difference is, however, Stewart's likely to come that cheaply, Jackson is not.

Possible. Though people thought he'd give the Rangers a discount and stay there, but he was asking 6/120 from there, reportedly.

Me too. Though I still think the price will negotiate down a bit more. It started at $120 million, so it's dropped a little already.

To me it's irrelevant whether we move Garza or not. Either way Jackson is likely to be overpaid and not likely to turn into the frontline pitcher that he'll likely be paid to be.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him get a Dempster type contract (4/52, 13 mil AAV) and very possibly more than that. Especially if Darvish isn't posted this offseason. I think we need to target pitching this offseason (along with one of the big FA 1B), but if we're going to overpay for pitching, it needs to be elite pitching. Not the possibility of elite pitching.

If Jackson comes at 3/36 or so, I have no real problem with him - if it doesn't hinder a possible Wilson/Darvish addition. If he gets into 4 years and/or the $15 million/year range, I lose interest really fast.

I'm warming up to the idea (I think) toonster floated out a while back of a McNutt+ package to net Headley. I didn't like it at the time and I'm still not crazy about it, but I think Headley is clearly the best option at third this offseason and could be a longterm option there.

28/29 isn't that old for a pitcher if you're thinking about whether he'll decline. However, if you're looking at his chances of hitting his upside and you're likely going to be paying him as if he's already hit his upside (a Dempster-esque contract or bigger wouldn't surprise me), it's getting a little old for him to have not shown any more than he has. As for Wilson, not only is he a much better pitcher than Jackson - struck out roughly 1.5 batters per 9 in his career, has posted two seasons of greater WAR than anything Jackson ever has - but he also has less mileage on his arm than Jackson. Jackson has thrown just over 1,000 MLB innings and has never been consistently good, Wilson has tossed around 700 MLB innings and has been great in his only two years starting. If we're going to overpay in money/contract this offseason, we need to overpay to stars, not guys who might be stars but have never shown that ability. I just don't understand the comparison. With Stewart, there's upside with basically no risk (if there is any, you don't pursue him). With Jackson, there might be upside and there's a ton of risk.

Entering his age 29 season, I have strong doubts that he will improve on those numbers. The further he gets into his prime years, the less likely that he'll become a consistently very good pitcher. If he continues with the wild inconsistency his WAR numbers show, he's not going to be worth the contract he's likely to receive. Most of the people who have shown interest in Stewart are only that way if he comes extremely cheap. That's the difference between Jackson and Stewart - one's a very high priced gamble, while the other is likely to be a very cheap gamble. I'm open to doing the latter, but not the former. As for the rotation, if we're going to pour a ton of money into one player, I want him to be a legitimate star (Wilson/Darvish). Otherwise, I'd rather go after potential high/semi-high upside guys at a lower cost (Wei-Yin Chen, for instance).

Yeah, no interest in trading Soriano if Figgins is all we can get. There's still a non-zero chance Sori has a rebound year, I'm not sure that's the case with Figgins.

The problem is, Garza was 27 and pitching in the AL East at the time of the trade and Jackson will turn 29 next year and has been underwhelming all over the place (AL East, AL Central, NL Central). Garza also had somewhat better K/9, BB/9, and WHIP numbers. I wasn't the biggest fan of giving up as much as we did for a gamble like Garza, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of giving up a bunch of money on an older, worse gamble like Jackson.

If he could be had at 3/36, I'd be fine with him. But given the poor high-end talent on the market after Wilson and maybe Darvish, I tend to think that's on the lower end of what he'll get.

Me too. Ofman not completely closing the door on Headley is the most encouraging bit of news from that tidbit, for me.

What's the appeal in Jackson? He has a career 6.68 K/9 and 3.66 BB/9. His xFIPs have shown improvement the past couple of years (3.71 and 3.73) and he's been a 3.6-3.8 WAR pitcher the past couple of years, but he'll need to start striking guys out and walking fewer for me to see much more upside. I think he'll get well overpaid for what his production is likely to be. I'm not at all interested in him.

But we'd also have a frontline starter no longer on the roster. There's a lot to be said about having an elite starter being paid far less than his production. The only way to replace Garza's production in the short term would be to shell out $50-100 million on Darvish and/or CJ Wilson.

True. I don't see giving up on multiple seasons as a realistic scenario, though. And if it is, then trading Garza is only a smaller part of an overall larger mistake.

I'd be pretty surprised if Theo and co let any rumors slip on who we're legitimately interested in. They seem really secretive.