WrigleyField 22

This might be the dumbest thing asked on here since Da Bum left it's misguided to keep repeating that some of these prospects are sure to fail with the implication veterans are comparatively a sure thing; it's a point that's needlessly belabored it's been said before, but it warrants repeating that "minor league batting statistics will predict major league batting performance with essentially the same reliability as previous major league statistics" so let's talk about the veterans who'll flame out, too, like Schierholtz, Jackson, Sweeney, etc. have Well there's truth to that but I don't think the actual projections are gonna be as rosey as "plug in all the prospects". Some will be worse one will be better, some on the money. However as long as the alternatives they replace are generally worse we should use the resources we have like money and improve the offense more. But there's a generally growing feeling from fans that would don't need good hitters (or even potentially good ones like Castillo) because our lineup is "full". But I still project a Sczur or Reed Johnson like vet in our roster when I'd gladly bump everyone down one. Same rule applies to pitchers but we have more depth, even if it lacks the high end potential. But with our FO track record and the injury risk of pitchers I wouldn't keep putting big FA resources into pitching after two guys, which again still leaves money to play with. There's too much available funds for people to scoff at hitting just because our first wave happens to be here.

What's the conservative $ estimate on what they'll have to spend, $40-45M. Even if you grab a top of the rotation starter AND a mid rotation starter, your talking 30-35m? Leaving up to another $10m or more. If we thought we had a lot less available, I may feel differently, but they should have plenty to address pitching needs and still add more hitters to give us depth and options.

Why does it have to be a specific guy?

While we need to spend on pitching, hitting is still a need. A ton of the guys we are counting in haven't seen a big league pitch, have injury concerns, or have had struggles with the ML pitching they've seen. A starting caliber OF would go a long way. Hopefully it's addressed somewhere else in FA or trade. So, to solve this problem you wanted to sign a guy that has never seen a big league pitch? Just bring in additional options in anticipation of some of the inevitable failures.

While we need to spend on pitching, hitting is still a need. A ton of the guys we are counting in haven't seen a big league pitch, have injury concerns, or have had struggles with the ML pitching they've seen. A starting caliber OF would go a long way. Hopefully it's addressed somewhere else in FA or trade.

10 Teams. I was a little worried about Jackson too so hopefully I don't regret not keeping one of my RBs instead (could have kept Bush, Spiller, or Vereen, all for around Market value).

Drew Brees, NO QB $41 Matt Ryan, Atl QB $3 Tony Romo, Dal QB $2 Jamaal Charles, KC RB $60 Andre Ellington, Ari RB $19 Joique Bell, Det RB $11 Pierre Thomas, NO RB $3 Donald Brown, SD RB $1 DeSean Jackson, Wsh WR $14 Keeper Antonio Brown, Pit WR $10 Keeper Alshon Jeffery, Chi WR $5 Keeper Riley Cooper, Phi WR $6 Terrance Williams, Dal WR $7 Kyle Rudolph, Min TE $2 49ers D/ST D/ST $3 Matt Bryant, Atl K $1 Left money sitting on the table which I've really never done. And 3 QB's was excessive. Still like my team, though.

I was thinking of Upton, but he doesn't fit the OP's criteria of only having two more years. Not many do, though. Given that, here's what I come up with that have a rough contract fit: Andre Ethier (2017 + Option, $18M/18/17.5) Curtis Granderson (2017, $16M/16/15) Matt Holiday (2016 + Option, all at $17M) Nick Swisher (2016 + option, $15M/15/14) Michael Bourn (2016 + option, $13.5M/14/12) I'd trade Jackson for any of those, no cash exchanged. The Mets aren't trading a hitter for substandard pitching, and nobody is taking Jackson without actual relief. Well Jackson is relief in all those instances, though barely for Bourne.

I was thinking of Upton, but he doesn't fit the OP's criteria of only having two more years. Not many do, though. Given that, here's what I come up with that have a rough contract fit: Andre Ethier (2017 + Option, $18M/18/17.5) Curtis Granderson (2017, $16M/16/15) Matt Holiday (2016 + Option, all at $17M) Nick Swisher (2016 + option, $15M/15/14) Michael Bourn (2016 + option, $13.5M/14/12) I'd trade Jackson for any of those, no cash exchanged.

All these new rules feel targeted at the Cubs because we keep end up being the last to try and start exploiting them, but really it's because we waited too long.

It's our first time with keepers, if you drafted the guy it's the average of the price you paid and this year's ESPN value, if you picked them up as a FA it's 80% of this year's ESPN value. Gotcha. Doesn't reward you too much for smart drafting.

Man how does your league determine keeper price? I think I go Allen and Stacy.

Chicago National Baseball Club. With a big Toyota across the chest. I'd enjoy the team just as much.

It looks crappy in large part because those mock ups plastered a logo nearly on top of the existing. If the uniforms were redesigned and it looked basically like soccer uniforms I'd have a hard time REALLY caring, though may be a little annoyed. It wouldn't effect my enjoyment of the actual game though.

Baseball has probably the most effective on screen advertisements so I think they'd be the last of the major sports to jump to uniform advertisements. It seems inevitable for the NBA.

I thought just one. Still, we're not looking at a 60M difference between him and Castillo and there are plenty of other players Castillo could "replace" based on trades, injury, or performance. Or Castillo himself could flop but if we can't take a risk on a27 year old FA we may never have a payroll above $80M again.

Valbuena's skill set is precisely the type that doesn't result in inflated paychecks. So I'm not too worried about his escalating salary. I'm not against a Castillo signing. But his Cuban league numbers aren't all that impressive and the scouting reports are contradictory. All I'm saying is that I want to know more about what type of player he is before I get upset that the Cubs are or aren't willing to offer a certain amount. I am moderately interested in seeing how Renteria would try to cycle Castillo, Alcantara, Soler, Bryant, Baez, and Valbuena around in a lineup. But unfortunately there's not an easy platoon option that I see. Bare minimum, Valbuena can make 22-25 over the next 5 years and I think that's being really conservative IMO (final arb year and 4 FA years). Plus the actual number thrown out for Castillo is 55. So a conservative figure is $30M extra over that time span. Plus even if Valbuena keeps providing surplus value, Alcontara could struggle, Soler could continue to get hurt, or Stanton could become available and drain us of surplus value guys. I don't think you'd see any strict platoons either. You could easily move Alcontara around as required and just give guys normal rest, protect against injuries or play non-handedness matchups.

i tried this argument in the Hamels thread, people weren't getting the logic sandwich i was feeding them I don't think that was the part of your argument that was necessarily poorly received (though certainly by some). I think your biggest issue was the hitter-pitcher exchange on top of seemingly valuing a prospect over proven MLB hitter.

Also it's probably more like $20m in surplus value needed over the life of the contract if that's the approach being taken as Valbuena isn't free an will continue to cost more himself.

He doesn't really just need to provide $60M in surplus to Valbuena though. He just needs to provide surplus value over one of our 7 non-catcher hitters. Or even if you want a $/win perspective, provide more value for $60M than a similarly priced FA (when we already have additional money to spend as well), so are the at least two or even three MLB FA that can provide similar value for that cost...

I don't think the MLB FA hitters are that great. A trade is obviously an option, but it's nice to think we might be able to increase production using only money.

Valbuena and Coghlan/Ruggiano have each been 2+ win players at positions there is a potential need for next season. I'm on board with adding another bat, but the depth is there now to hedge against a prospect falling flat or an injury or two. Wasn't Scheirholtz also about a 2 win player? I think they are great as the two backups, More so if our LF (Castillo) can slide over to CF. Valbuena you could still give 20 some starts in April plus another 40-50 without considering injuries and poor performance. Have him and Alcontara both as super-subs and still pick up 100-120 starts before injuries are considered.

This guy isn't a mlb vet and had limited experience in the big Cuban league. He could be a total bust. Which is basically like 5/8 of our projected starting lineup next year so let's have a little better insurance than Ruggiano and Coghlan.

I think it'd be silly to count on all our young guys. Go sign this guy and anyone not named Rizzo can take an occasional day off if everyone hits expectations. It's hard to see all of our available money being taken up by FA pitchers.

"... so I says to Coach K, 'BECAUSE 7 ATE 9'" At my friends rehearsal dinner our black waiter told this joke except for the punch line says, "because 7 is a [expletive]". None of us knew how to react. Not that it would help, but I kinda need to know what expletive was there... I didn't tell you the waiter was black for no reason. That man sounds like some sort of genius at making white people uncomfortable. In the end we all laughed at the joke, but there was just that initial moment of shock as I had just mockingly said "cuz 7 8 9" and was not at all expecting that.