Jump to content
North Side Baseball

dew1679666265

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,547

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by dew1679666265

  1. dew1679666265
    The problem is you're most likely not going to get anything of value for Baker. The Cubs gave up Al Alburquerque to get Baker a few years ago and, at the time, Alburquerque wasn't on any prospect list at all. Now he's older and more expensive than he was then. His value to the Cubs as a pinch hitter is higher than his value to other teams and unless we have a need for his money (i.e. we need to free up a couple million to be able to afford Pujols and Wilson or something) then there's very little value in trading him.
  2. dew1679666265
    You don't think it's realistic to think that the third biggest market in MLB could be worth enough to have a $180-190 million payroll 8 years from now? The Red Sox and Phillies are in the $160s now and I have trouble believing we can't be at least where they are in payroll or a decent amount higher if the new front office is able to make this a successful franchise on the field. If the new Cubs TV idea comes to fruition, that would do nothing but help, I would think.
  3. dew1679666265
    If Baker didn't provide a value off the bench, I'd agree with you. However, he provides a skill that we don't have much of (or any) on the bench and does it at a relatively low cost. He also could part of a platoon at third if trade options like Headley and Stewart fall through. There's a lot of value in that. And you don't let players with value and no real replacement go just to free up extra money for the draft/international signings. Nobody we have is going to mash lefties like Baker and anybody we bring in to do it is going to cost at least what Baker does, if not more.
  4. dew1679666265
    $30 million is always going to be a "thang". That's likely to be ~20% of the payroll. Besides, just because they could doesn't mean they should. It's still $30M they can't spend elsewhere. From 2003-2011, the Cubs increased their payroll roughly $55 million (79-134). If they raise payroll by that much over the next 8-9 years (more than realistic given their ownership), Pujols would cost around 15% of the Cubs' payroll. If Ricketts bumps payroll an average of $10 million per year for 8 years, we'd be looking at Pujols being 14% of payroll. That's significant, but if we're not producing enough young, cheap talent to offset that cost, then the Theo/Hoyer/McLeod trio isn't doing as good a job as we all expect.
  5. dew1679666265
    My thoughts exactly. If I'm going to commit those years and money to a player, especially a pitcher, I want to know I'm getting elite production. I don't know that with Jackson and that's why I'd shy away from him. Good article by the way, Tim.
  6. dew1679666265
    Agreed. With both of these players, I don't think there's a lot of value to straight out cutting them. I don't think either has a particularly strong future role for the team, however both are pretty cheap and could be in some way enticing to other teams. Neither will be the cornerstone of a trade, but both could be semi-valued throw-ins if they perform well in whatever role Theo/Hoyer has for them in 2012. Certainly more value than just cutting them and the cost to keep them is pretty minimal - especially for Colvin.
  7. dew1679666265
    It wouldn't surprise me either way, to be honest. They have a need for him, but 4 players locked up to huge deals through 2016-2017 is a lot, even for the Yankees. Their major future commitments: ARod: through 2017, age 37 in 2012 - 29/28/25/21/20/20 CC: through 2016 w/2017 vesting option, age 32 in 2012 - 23/23/23/23/25/25 Teix: through 2016, age 32 in 2012 - 22.5/22.5/22.5/22.5/22.5 Wilson (hypothetical, just for the sake of it, assume 5/85 deal): through 2016, age 32 in 2012 - 12/13/15/20/25 That would be $90.5 million committed in 2016 to 4 players - one age 41 and three age 36. I know it's the Yankees, but that's a lot of cash invested in old players.
  8. dew1679666265
    My concern with Jackson is that his price will exceed his production by too much. He's the third best option on the market and is coming off one of his best seasons by ERA. If we miss on both elite arms, I think I'd rather take a low cost option (Bedard, Francis) than overpay for Jackson.
  9. dew1679666265
    It doesn't necessarily surprise me that they'd be interested, but I wondered (and still do) exactly how interested they'd be. Obviously if they decide they want him, they can outbid anybody else in the league. However, there's always been a difference of opinions between Cashman and the Steinbrenners on doling out large sums of money on a whim. It's possible that with the new extension and raise to CC and with 3 players signed to huge deals through 2016-2017 and $172 committed in 2012 and $126 committed in 2013, they may avoid the bidding war for Wilson and go with the lesser commitment to Oswalt or Buerhle. Whether they pursue Wilson probably depends on two things: 1) Do the Steinbrenners demand it; 2) What does Cashman think of Ivan Nova. Cashman has a fiscally responsible side to him, unlike the Steinbrenners, and if he has a high view of Nova, he may choose to go with Oswalt or Buerhle and make less of a commitment. But if he sees 2011 as Nova's ceiling, he may make the commitment to get the elite talent. Darvish is also a possibility that could limit their interest in Wilson. The Steinbrenners may get excited about the splashy signing and insist that Cashman make that move or, depending largely on their presence in Asia, Cashman may like the upside of Darvish.
  10. dew1679666265
    I actually think it'll be the opposite. Pujols has said he doesn't want to DH (or the rumors have been that he doesn't want to DH, I don't think there have been direct quotes from him) and Prince has said he's fine with it. I think Pujols will stick in the NL (Cubs, Nats, Cards frontrunners) and Prince heads to the AL (Angels, Blue Jays, maybe Yankees frontrunners). Obviously if somebody from the opposite league blows one of them away, I don't necessarily think they'll turn it down, but that's the most likely scenario.
  11. dew1679666265
    I agree. It still could get into that high-end area, but after his down year and the likelihood that the Yankees and Red Sox won't be a player for him, I think it's pretty unlikely. I think it'll end up in the higher end of your range.
  12. dew1679666265
    Now we're parsing words. The Cubs are not mired in a huge quagmire without the ability to pull themselves out. They are not looking at the prospects of a 5-8 year rebuilding process before they can even hope to compete for a playoff spot. They are a huge market team with a lot of money coming off the books over the next couple of years, only one long term contract on the books (and it ends 3 years from now), an owner committed to spending what's necessary to build a winner, and a front office eager and capable of building up a top of the line farm system. Just because this isn't the ideal scenario in which to sign an elite star, it's still an excellent fit. We can rebuild this team into a playoff contender by 2013 easily and maybe by next year without crippling the future of the franchise. We can win as soon as next year and Albert Pujols (or Prince Fielder) would be an integral part of that process. Just because there might be a better time 6-7 years from now doesn't mean you pass up an excellent opportunity to make a massive upgrade to your roster now. Just because we may miss the playoffs next season is no reason to pass this opportunity by when the player we're signing can help us significantly for the next 4-5 years at least.
  13. dew1679666265
    I bet the Giants would demand Castro or they'd simply clean out our farm system. I really like Lincecum, but I'd go for Wilson first or if I'm taking the trade route, just go all out and try to pry away King Felix.
  14. dew1679666265
    Hopefully the Cardinals will take the same anti-Cub approach.
  15. dew1679666265
    That makes me a bit sad if they're seriously interested. It may (hopefully) just be an exploratory type discussion, though.
  16. dew1679666265
    Depending on the competition for him. If it's primarily the Cubs and maybe a couple other teams, I doubt the bidding gets close to that. If, however, the Cubs go against many of the possible teams - Blue Jays, Orioles, Nationals, Yankees, Red Sox, Angels - then I could see the bidding possibly getting into that area. I wouldn't call it very likely at all, especially since all signs point to the Yankees and Red Sox not having interest and Pujols preferring to avoid the DH.
  17. dew1679666265
    Nathan's interesting since he might come cheap. I wouldn't want to see us put any real money into the bullpen this offseason. Too much good young talent to pour anything more than a reclamation amount of money into it. Give Woody his super cheap deal, maybe bring back Shark (probably) and be done with the pen unless Nathan or someone similar is willing to come in for a major bargain.
  18. dew1679666265
    I'd be pretty uncomfortable with it, but I'd be ok with it as I expect Theo would believe that he'll be productive enough in the first 5 years to offset the second half of the deal. That would probably be my max limit, though - and I'm not convinced it'll go that high. I think my middle deal is the most likely range for Pujols.
  19. dew1679666265
    I'd be elated with a 6/180 deal (30 AAV), happy with an 8/240 deal, and be hesitantly ok with a 10/300 deal for Pujols. For Fielder, I'd be elated with a 6/132 deal (22 AAV), happy with a 6/150 deal (25 AAV), and hesitantly ok with an 8 year deal of any sort (with an AAV in the general vicinity of the first two deals).
  20. dew1679666265
    Like was mentioned, that will happen anyway because of fear of flags. On the flipside of your example, however, if Devin Hester does that to the Titans and the replay shows that Hester did, in fact, step out of bounds and the Bears didn't actually earn the TD against my team, I'm going to be pretty pissed. The delayed emotion of elation is going to be there so long as penalties are in the game, but the satisfaction of seeing a bad call reversed in favor of your team won't be there unless replay is in place.
  21. dew1679666265
    It's much more likely that we fill the other four rotation slots internally than that we fill first base internally. There are also far better "second choices" available in the rotation than at first base this offseason. Both are important to sign, but if Theo/Hoyer is comfortable only filling one of the two needs with a marquee signing, then I think first base should be the focus.
  22. dew1679666265
    The lack of first base talent makes Pujols/Prince more important and logical, I think. We don't have anybody anywhere close to the majors who's the talent level of Wilson, but we do have guys who can be decent to very good starters making their way to the majors in the next few years. At first we have Bryan LaHair and Rebel Ridling. Other than Vogelbach, we don't have any major league talent at first in the organization. That's the biggest reason I put Pujols/Prince ahead of Wilson.
  23. dew1679666265
    With both LeMahieu and Flaherty seemingly big league ready, may as well save 2 mil and let Baker go. Is it possible to trade him before ofering arbitration? Or perhaps let The Red Sox have him. I don't want to turn this into a long debate as it would derail the thread, but it would be pretty hard, I think, to find a guy who has the positional versatility and mashes lefties the way Baker does for just $2 million. He's worth keeping.
  24. dew1679666265
    Yeah, it just makes too much sense not to net Pujols/Prince this offseason. I'm viewing Wilson as icing on the cake, so to speak, but can't help but get hopeful about the first basemen.
  25. dew1679666265
    I really hope that writer is correct and Texas isn't willing to pay Wilson. I'd be all over a 5/80 deal for him regardless of his postseason numbers last season. I just can't find the logic in disregarding 400+ innings of stellar pitching because a guy struggled in a handful of postseason games. Especially when he pitched fine in the 2010 postseason. That's the line of thinking that helped dismantle the 2008 Cubs. They won 97 regular season games, flopped against a string of right handers in the postseason, and Hendry felt the need to bring in lefties at all cost - meaning too much playing time for guys like Aaron Miles and Joey Gathright. You should never overreact to a small number of games in baseball, too many variables involved.
×
×
  • Create New...