XZero771679666304
-
Posts
14,655 -
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by XZero771679666304
-
This is better than just about anything I could have imagined when it was announced that Bob was leaving. -
Trading Soriano
XZero771679666304 replied to ctcf's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
That's a huge part of the equation. Soriano's reversal of trend has afforded the luxury of even considering getting something of value in return and/or not having to eat all of his contract to move him. This time a year ago, the team would have had to pay nearly all of his salary just to give him away. Now if we're talking about a guy like Hamilton, for whom being able to play 100 games 2-3 years from now is a huge question but will likely command 20MM+ in AAV, you may just be stuck with him. There's a lot of subjectivity in play with regard to this issue. -
I agree. But he is getting paid closer's money, so if trading him nets a useful return and frees up some money to buy another reliever or two, that would be all right. But he's a useful bullpen piece that shouldn't be dealt just for the sake of it.
-
Trading Soriano
XZero771679666304 replied to ctcf's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Absolutely. That said, if we get offered a couple of top 20 prospects from an average system for him, I'd just hold onto him. If we get a young major leaguer with upside or a prospect package at least as good as the Dempster deal, trade him. If not, what good does it do to get rid of him? Soriano is a sunk cost. He's not a sunk cost if you can get some salary relief from his contract. Why is covering all of Soriano's contract to get a decent prospect an acceptable usage of money (as opposed to say getting 5M/year in salry relief) whereas "overspending" on a FA by 5M/year is unacceptable? If the comparison was between picking up Soriano's 2013-14 salary and overpaying for a FA on a two year deal, you'd have a point. But what's scary about giving big money to some of the older FAs isn't the AAV, it's the years. That said, only the years Soriano has been paid for are sunk, so percentage of his remaining salary that would be eaten should depend on the quality of the return. There is absolutely no reason to just give him away and eat the rest of his contract since he's still productive and there's salary relief to be gained. To eat the entire remainder, I would think at least 2-3 top 10 (organizational) prospects would be in order. At least. -
As I said earlier, I'd go 2-3 years on Hamilton. Or even 2-3 years with a couple of club options. But I absolutely would not go beyond 3 guaranteed under any circumstances. Then you're not serious about signing him. Unless the money/years are just right, we shouldn't be. For most of his career, he's been a 4-5 fWAR guy in a full, healthy season. The one truly terrific year was boosted by a crazy .390 BABIP. He'll be 32 next year, is chronically unhealthy, and has plenty of other issues. If we were projected for around 85 wins next year, sure... you take that risk to put you over the top. But he's not the sort to build around. Pretty much. There is much debate about accepting risk on free agents, but Josh Hamilton is the absolute poster child for what would be considered a "high risk" signing.
-
To be fair, if he chooses the Angels and the money is close to even, it'll be because he simply preferred the West Coast and/or a shot at the WS, in which case the Cubs would have had little chance. But I think the Cubs have the advantage if they offered him the chance to close.
-
If he wants to close, the Cubs have to be the choice.
-
2009, 10, and 11 say hi. What does drafting really poorly in the mid-2000s and not having enough young, impact players graduate have to do with free agent prices? It had little to do with the market prices, but it had everything to do with how much the team spent on overpriced free agents.
-
Mark Reynolds was non-tendered.
-
I'm not sure how excited I am by either. Bourn is going to cost a ton ("true leadoff hitter" and whatnot to up his value) and may well decline really fast and while I really like Choo, he's probably going to cost a ton in prospects. If we were close to contention and he put us over the top, I'd be excited. But as an early piece of the puzzle, I'm not crazy about him. These have the feel of overpaying to get good quick. I don't think Choo will cost "a ton". But Bourn will, plus his value is tied to his legs and he's entering his 30's, so I don't really think the FO is interested, at least not at the price Boras will be seeking.
-
Like others, I'm not buying the Bourn interest. Choo could be traded for and re-signed.
-
As I said earlier, I'd go 2-3 years on Hamilton. Or even 2-3 years with a couple of club options. But I absolutely would not go beyond 3 guaranteed under any circumstances.
-
Yeah, we're the misguided ones. Let's just ignore context and sign the best player on the market, regardless of the red flags (of which there are many) surrounding him and the terms he's asking for, simply because he's the best player right now (though wasn't even all that great post-May). That'd be bright (or reckless, stupid, and otherwise ill-advised). Even the meatball ex-player "analysts" are advising extreme caution with Hamilton, and that should tell you something. At least with most aging stars you can have some confidence they'll be able to take the field 150 times a year. Hamilton is the very definition of volatile, and the fact that the market for him isn't taking shape under his current demands reflects that. You can make a case that passing on some of the players the FO has passed on was due to being overly cautious, but not in Hamilton's case. But hey, let's just give him the 5+/100+ he's asking for because we can. [expletive] brilliant.
-
Not so much a promise as it is a threat. LOL
-
Go out and get Hamilton then No, thanks. Unless the entire market realizes this and he has to take far less than he is expected to get. Sign him up without question. No brainer for the Cubs in their situation. He is 32 next season and was very bad (given what he's going to command) after May in 2012. His K rate was up significantly last year. In fact,in the last couple months of last year he was up around 35%. Giving him 100M+ for 5-6 years is a no-brainer all right... in one direction. Not to mention that whole sorta kinda crazy history he has. The biggest red flag is his inability to stay on the field. Add his age to that, and you have a recipe for disaster if you sign him long term. That substance abuse history is an afterthought.
-
Go out and get Hamilton then No, thanks. Unless the entire market realizes this and he has to take far less than he is expected to get. Sign him up without question. No brainer for the Cubs in their situation. I agree, giving Hamilton what he's looking for would be a no brain move.
-
Go out and get Hamilton then No, thanks. Unless the entire market realizes this and he has to take far less than he is expected to get. Hamilton is a bad fit. I wouldn't feel comfortable going beyond 2-3 years with him, and given where the Cubs are now, that wouldn't make much sense. That said, Hamilton at a reasonable price for 3 years wouldn't bother me, but someone is going to give him 4-5, imo.
-
I guess I'm thinking either one could get a big league contract from someone.
-
Unless they had something in the works for another 3B, I don't see any reason they would, or could afford to, really.
-
I wish we could find a talented 25 year old to put on the field. ... and you wonder why people get tired of this kind of post. I guess you read something in this post that certainly wasn't there. Because you haven't been taking shots whenever you can at the current regime? He's just a repeat victim of selective (mis)interpretation.
-
Odd is one way of putting it. I think just I got slightly more ignorant for having read it.
-
OSU taking the piss. They had every opportunity to break it wide open in the first and now they're paying for not taking advantage. But the story of this challenge will be MSU, Iowa, NW and Wisky losing to lesser teams.
-
WTF Sparty
-
But he didn't care about personal stats, he cared about winning. And that's what mattered. Just ask him.
-
Yes it is. The challenge helps me put aside my hatreds for a couple days. But I'm disappointed since I thing the Big Ten could have taken all of tonight's games.
