WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
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 Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WrigleyField 22
-
Well, as I was drafting, one of my players went down with a leg fracture. But, hey at least I have two IR spots. Anyways, how'd I do (and yes, I drafted Crabtree as a potential keeper). 10 Team League. $200 Auction. QB Andrew Luck 21 RB C.J. Spiller 15 (keeper) RB Arian Foster 58 RB/WR Reggie Bush 26 WR Dwayne Bowe 10 WR Mike Wallace 17 TE Tony Gonzalez 9 (keeper) D/ST Broncos D/ST 1 K Matt Prater 1 BE DeSean Jackson 12 BE Shane Vereen 8 BE Antonio Brown 9 BE Carson Palmer 3 BE Andre Brown 4 (Why he was playing, I don't know) BE Alshon Jeffery 4 BE Michael Crabtree 2
-
I'm not letting my hopes get up on Choo or Ellsbury either SAD FACE I'm getting my hopes up and Choo AND Ellsbury. Double Down. -
Bears Offseason Thread (Trestman new HC, pg 37)
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Other Sports
Wow crazy to think at the end of the season Louis and Webb looked like our best OL options and look where they both are and where our line is. -
Do the additional dollar signs make it more valuable?
-
Well Fangraphs is the more predictive WAR right? BR is more, "tell me what happened". What does BR say?
-
Bears Offseason Thread (Trestman new HC, pg 37)
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Other Sports
Guys I know Oakland sucks, but this is still nice to see. This is what you're supposed to do to bad teams. -
How long until Donnie is back up so we can win this one.
-
Donnie [expletive] Murphy you [expletive] nobody!
-
Random Cubs Musings: Minor League Edition
WrigleyField 22 replied to Little Slide Rooter's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
He could, but I don't think we need to worry too much about innings yet. He's still had plenty to the point where he can work his way up to MLB regular without seeing big jumps. -
I don't know if there is no hope of him not being a MLB player next year, I'd assume they will have him play in a winter league this year and if he has a decent spring and then a good few, healthy, first months in AAA I could see him up sometime around mid-summer/ASB. Well I was mainly thinking about opening day roster, but yea. It depends on if you have injuries or if one of your bench pieces is an already fringe player like Cody Ransom or not.
-
He's not done as a prospect, but any hope of being an MLB player next year are gone. If he can stay healthy and show something at AAA next year he still has a chance.
-
Also, when you move past normal backloading, these players, while mostly dumb are often smart enough to be surrounded by an agent and financial advisor who will recognize their client being abused and will fight for a a true value of a contract the accurately reflects their value (and their cut). Front loading would only be advisable if you have an owner running year to year budgets and will pocket any money you don't diligently spend now.
-
While the CD example is true, the fact is that you don't necessarily have that money now. You're CD would be less than the full year's salary and incrementally less based on when you have the cash flows to contibute the money towards saving. That doesn't make backloading bad. And I would agree modest backloading is probably always advisable, but when you move past 10% increases it should be more used as a planning mechanism. Anything under 10% I'm okay just considering as flat. 50% increases between year one and two as I suggested are cash flow planning mechanisms and not shrewd investment decisions.
-
True you can always backload, but that doesn't necessarily help this years team. You can take the time value of money savings and kick that back into payroll, representing small incremental gains, but you have to actually save that money money to realize the benefit and not just kick it down the road by also spending the savings now.
-
No it can also be payroll projections ie- cost savings. In some unique instances like the Cubs stand, cost savings could also be outside savings (needing to save less for the stadium) and reallocation of current funds (better record equals less amateur spending). Without a doubt, IMO, the Zell era Cubs backloaded to the point of only short term value knowing it would be sold off for someone else to deal with. That whole time value of money thing that jives with backloading only works with proper planning, is basically my point.
-
For the record I'm no fan of blind backloading. Any contract has to be viewed in its entirety and on a yearly basis. Back loading is advantageous when it lines up with projected revenue gains or as a timing mechanism. Hendry era Cubs backloaded to try and inject short term value (both in wins and sale value) and it was definitely irresponsible spending that was bound to burst. The Cubs of 2013 are not at that point and revenue gains and cost savings should definitely hit the team 3-4 years down the line, not to mention cost certainty with what should be core pieces.
-
Wouldn't it make sense to front load the deal given the projected payroll for the next couple of years is relatively low? Why would that make sense? They don't have much space the next couple years, but do have theoretical space in 3-5 years. 17.5 is quite a bit of money for Choo when he's 34 years old and 35 years old. What difference does it make if it's the same overall dollars committed? Paying it later is better, and it would be even if the Cubs weren't supposed to have much more money at that point. Yea I mainly threw out that structure because it seemed in line with the cubs payroll potential growth. If you aren't gonna spend the saved money you can go ahead and make it a flat 15, but after the sell off this deadline they do have holes to fill and could easily spend $20mil on a starting pitcher and a couple bullpen pieces and platoon guys. I even considered suggesting both Choo and Ellsbury, but I think that leaves too little to round out the pitching staff.
-
I do 4/60 and structure it like this 10, 15, 17.5, 17.5. Gives us plenty of flexibility for rounding out the rotation and BP. INF probably pretty much set. Sign Sweeney for a few million. Schierholtz probably gets a little bump and find another RH platoon partner. LF -Choo, CF- Sweeney/Lake, RF- Schierholtz/TBD.
-
Even if we're just maintaining payroll we should have a pretty healthy FA budget this summer.
-
He can probably out produce Cody Ransom next year and might be about equivalent to Logan Watkins, with less patience, but a tick better power. So as utility infielders go, he could be an option as the 6th IF.
-
LOL
-
I don't know that Theo and Jed foresaw Nate being as good as he has been, but signing him to that deal and protecting him in a platoon has looked like a pretty [expletive] prescient move. It'd look a lot better if they had found a better other half of the platoon. Hey, no shame in taking a shot at someone like Hairston. If that had worked out the production would have been epic. No, I absolutely agree with the thought behind it, but you can't heap on too much praise, hindsight and all.
-
I don't know that Theo and Jed foresaw Nate being as good as he has been, but signing him to that deal and protecting him in a platoon has looked like a pretty [expletive] prescient move. It'd look a lot better if they had found a better other half of the platoon.
-
I don't know, I find it pretty unlikely they make this move unless they felt like they weren't picking up his option already. Right or wrong, they're probably moving on, hopefully they have a legitimate replacement next spring. Just to clarify, there was one tweet that the savings was $2.5m and then one of our own posters said that about covered the international penalty. Some posters are now running with that correlation. And apparently that 2.5m is 1m in salary and 1.5m in buyout, so to reach a 2.5M figure you're saying he was not being brought back, so it's more about saving yourself the 1.5m expense of cutting a player than anything.
-
It'd all be okay when Giancarlo Stanton is patrolling LF.
