Cubs, Rangers final two on Edwin Jackson

Cubs, Rangers final two on Edwin Jackson

Some news today on the Cubs as they continue to look for young pitching.  While I have mentioned briefly that Edwin Jackson fits the profile in terms of age and upside, they have managed to keep things relatively quiet as neither Tom or I could confirm any interest.

Well, according to Jim Bowden of ESPN, they are very much interested and are one of the final two teams in on Jackson.  The other is the Texas Rangers.

The Padres bowed out when they refused to go 4 years on Jackson, but apparently both Texas and the Cubs will.  Jackson is said to have been seeking an annual salary of $12-$13M.

There was no qualifying offer made to Jackson and the Cubs will not owe a draft pick should they sign him.

He's a different kind of pitcher than Anibal Sanchez.  He relies less on changing speeds and more on pure power.  His command isn't quite as good as Sanchez, but it is still above average -- and more than enough for a power pitcher.

Jackson can hit the mid 90s and has a plus slider to go with an average change and curve.  Last year for the Nationals he averaged nearly 8 strikeouts per 9 innings while walking 2.75/9 IP.

Seeing how things haven't broken the Cubs way on these things lately, we'll hold off before getting too excited.

 

 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: edwin jackson

Comments

Leave a comment
  • No more than 3 years for any average pitcher. Let's hope Texas
    offers more years and or money

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    I predict this rumor will end with the same result as the Dempster, Haren and Sanchez rumors.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to emartinezjr:

    LOL

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    In 4 years he'll only be 32. I think the Cubs will make an exception here.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree that they will go that extra yr, if they don't, they won't get anyone worth a damn this year, and most likely next year.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Yep, unfortunately the Cubs are in a position where they'll have to overpay if the want a FA -- even more than the usual overpay for FAs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to emartinezjr:

    EJ might be an average pitcher results wise, but he has top of the rotation stuff. When he's on, he's as good as anyone in the league. His problem has always been inconsistency from game to game and sometimes from inning to inning. I think EJ's unwillingness or inability to change speeds has been his biggest downfall. If Chris Bosio could get through to him, he could finally break through in a way he never has before. Of course, given the tandem of Mike Maddux and Greg Maddux that the Rangers have to offer, EJ might find that attractive as well, especially given their closer to winning now.

  • fb_avatar

    John, just saw that note on MLBTR too...I'm guessing you meant the Padres, and not Jackson, were not willing to go 4 years?
    You think 50 m would get it done?
    Also, what's the latest on guys like Marcum & Liriano? I think I'd rather see them go for Jackson first, but was wondering why the other two are still out there.

  • In reply to AdolphoPhillips67:

    Yes. Thanks. I went ahead and fixed that. I think 4/50 gets it done -- not sure either team is going that high.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I don't know if its possible to do so, but maybe make that 4th yr a mutual option yr if he pitches 600 innings or so the previous 3 yrs combined. Might work out for him too if he pitches a fabulous year in 2015 and he can opt out and go for that last big payday. ( Something CC Sabathia did but he just used it to get more cheddar from the yanks)

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Would really prefer it happen that way. Club option always ideal but I'd take a mutual option.

    What you're suggesting is more like a vesting option and that might be easier because that's something they feel like they can control to some degree.

  • I never really thought of him as a power pitcher. But I'd love to go into 2013 with

    Garza
    Shark
    Jackson
    Feldman
    Wood
    Baker will push Feldman or Wood to the pen when he's healthy. My guess is Feldman if only because Wood is a Lefty....

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Mid 90s fastball and a hard, nasty slider. He has power stuff, but doesn't get the huge K numbers for some reason. Rotation shapes up and gives Cubs some potential flexibility.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I think one of the reasons EJ doesn't get K's is that he doesn't change speeds. He's constantly trying to throw it as hard as he can, and hitters adjust. I also think all that effort causes him to sometimes overthrow and miss his spots. If he'd ever learn to dial it down a notch, two things would probably happen. First, he'd get more movement. Second, hitters would have to quit sitting on the heat.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    So maybe Theo/Jed are thinking that with his raw stuff and mental make-up, with some tweaks from Bosio they turn him into a top of the rotation kind of guy for back of the rotation $$$....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    It's more like mid-rotation dollars, but yes, he actually would have the potential to be a bargain compared to Sanchez. I think Jackson's stuff is better, but Sanchez is the better pitcher now because his stuff is more consistent.

    John, what do you think?

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    That's a good observation. Makes me wonder if that's why he goes from team to team. We've heard AZ soured on Bauer because he refuses to change his approach. I remember Jason Marquis had the same reputation when the Cubs signed him. Makes me wonder if EJax same way.

  • fb_avatar

    Either you quickly modified the page or it's time for me to put the bottle away!

  • In reply to AdolphoPhillips67:

    Ha! I noticed the same mistake right after I hit publish!

  • fb_avatar

    This is very exciting, which means it won't happen. Theo and Boras have a good relationship, but I am afraid the Rangers will panic sign Edwin because everyone is leaving them. He would be awesome for the Cubs, stabilization and a solid arm. He isn't a superstar, but he is above average. I am exites.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Demarrer:

    Yup, Rangers are more desperate to make a splash and unless Edwin really likes hitting, he will prob head to Texas.

    With what pitchers are going for now (and will only cost more and more) means you need to grab em when you can and hold on to your young pitching once they show they are MLB caliber. With the $$ being thrown around to good but not great players, makes you really wonder how much damn money these teams are making.

    Hopefully there is a plan C

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    The saving grace for the Cubs is Arlington is a hitters park to the max. If he wants another deal after the Cub's deal, Wrigley is a better place to pitch.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Demarrer:

    Yea, I thought about that too, but I think the chance of winning a ring and pitching in the post season may cancel that out, but def a great Point!!!

  • I realize that Jackson wouldn't cost the Cubs a draft pick, but doesn't anybody know who the draft pick compensation works. I know that players who were given a qualifying offer will cost teams a draft pick to sign, but is it a first round pick no matter what or are the high first round picks protected?

  • In reply to KSCubsFan:

    does anybody know

  • In reply to KSCubsFan:

    Top 10 first round picks are protected. If one of those teams signs a FA who was offered a qualifying offer, that teams loses their second round pick.

  • John, considering that this is from Bowden, I hope you finished your dinner before you posted this. Not worth losing a meal if his rumors fizzle out as usual.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    I thought about that too :)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    This. Both Bowden and Nightengale are on my "Yeah, right" list -- until they are right a LOT, I'm going to take everything they say with a few tons of salt.

  • First of all, holy crap, does Fangraph give you a lot of information. What a great high school math statistics course - baseball stats from Fangraphs. But I digress... Anyway, does it bother anyone else that he's been with so many different teams in such a short time or is it just because he's good enough but not great enough to flip for prospects? Bill James says he'll give the Cubs 199 innings so that is a plus in and of itself - a durable starting pitcher. I'm ok with this deal if they don't overpay and I'm guessing the Rangers will overpay in the end.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to BobMiller146:

    I think the main reason Jackson keeps moving to new teams is his old team gets a little frustrated. He has excellent stuff but isn't that consistent. He can have streaks of several very good games and then some mediocre, 5th starter type of starts. Still, his overall numbers every year have been good to very good for a while. A 4 year deal at his age and this market is not a horrible signing.

    I've always liked him and thought that if some team would commit to him for a few years and he doesn't have to put up with constant trade rumors that he might settle in a little more. But even if he stays as he is, I think he's a solid 3 with the talent to pitch better than that on many nights.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Just Win:

    Very well written. I think your 100% on this, Maybe some team stability, some good defense, and good coaching may be what the doctor ordered to get Edwin to the next level.

  • In reply to BobMiller146:

    It's a great site.

    It does make you wonder why he can't stay with one team, but it appears that's about to end soon, one way or the other. He's been flipped a couple of times, so he's good enough for that.

  • fb_avatar

    Given the right price I think Jackson could be a great add from both a skill perspective and a value perspective. Let's face it, he's been flipped a few times. What about Kazmir? Any word on him? Seems like the perfect market efficiency pitcher - power lefty, former prospect rebuilding his career, and young.

  • In reply to Bham Cub Fan:

    I have to think the Cub are scouting Kazmir. It seems now that they've taken their gambles with Baker and Feldman, now they want a guy they know they can count on. Maybe Kazmir more of a secondary guy.

  • How does he rate in the "make-up" category? Lots of teams in his career. Might just be coincidence. Although I'm pretty sure he goes to Texas anyway. As long as Bowden can be trusted that the Cubs and Rangers are actually the two finalists. Lol.

  • In reply to Bill:

    I'm not ready to trust anything Bowden or Nightengale say on their own. Seems to me they get a lot of info from agents, so they're ripe for being used.

    I haven't heard anything bad on EJax's makeup but it makes you wonder when they go from team to team.

  • While I would really like this signing, it won't happen. Like people have said , the Rangers are panicking right now and need to sign a name pitcher like Jackson. The Rangers will overpay , making it non-cost effective for the Cubs to top or even match the offer.

  • If you really look at what Jackson is a 3 or 4 year deal isn't a bad thing for him. He is around 200 inning #3 or 4 in a rotation with playoff experience. He isn't blocking anyone and at the end of his contract he will be a #5 inning eater and be 33 in his prime. Give him a 3 yr 41 mil and a player option for 14mil. Its not much for a middle rotation type in the long haul.

  • I can live with 4 years 50 million for Jackson. To me that has much more value than 5 years 75 million for Sanchez.

  • I'm not that crazy about Jackson. His career WHIP scares the hell out of me. If we got him slated for the back end in the future, I can live with it, but otherwise I kind of hope Detroit swoops in and shows us something on his medical record causing Jackson to invoke his 10-5.

  • Consistency has always been his issue. Let's say the Cubs win with 4 years and $52 million. If they can find a way to harness Jackson's raw stuff with consistency, that's a front of the rotation starter at $13 million a year.

    I'll take that deal any day.

  • If you take luck out of the equation, Edwin Jackson would essentially be Ryan Dempster and just little worse than Sanchez. His X FIP the last 3 years has been around 3.75.

    He also still has a little upside at 29.

  • In reply to Mitchener:

    Agreed. I think he's a pretty good #3. Not a bad consolation prize to Sanchez, especially if he costs them $30-35M less.

  • fb_avatar

    Also nice to maintain the relationship with Boras. If Appel is the guy in June, perhaps he can get in early and pitch in minors in 2013.

  • In reply to Louie101:

    I think he switched agents this year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Louie101:

    Actually, Appel and Manaea -- probably the two best college pitchers in the draft -- are both Scott Boras clients. What's particularly interesting there is that the Cubs seem to have a very good relationship with Boras, whereas he scares the Astros off a bit. That could be very good news come June.

  • John, as you know I love your site. But I wish you would dump the t shirt ad with the young girl. As a grandfather of teenage girls, I think it is quite trashy.

  • Sorry...I have no control over the ads that come on here. I'll ask the people at ChicagoNow if there is something I can do about that.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John, as a guy who builds community websites, OU shod knw your ads tend to skew toward the users urging habits. Those are targeted ads. Now I dont want to make any judgments about Ron, but it's Christmas, and if Ron or someone in his family is oing online shopping or accessing soal media quite a bit, those t-shirt ads will show up. I always see Bose ads, which makes sees, I am deeply immersed in music.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jive Wired:

    Wow, spell correct. Holy heck. Urging = surfing.

  • In reply to Jive Wired:

    Thanks Jive Wired!

  • Oh come on Grandpa Ron, have one of your grand kids give you an adblocker for your browser for christmas. They can fix that for you in about ten minutes.

  • fb_avatar

    Alright I like this... I hoped they go after him.. John what do you think this means on terms of garza and samardija extensions?

  • In reply to Colman Conneely:

    Think they still want to keep Samardzija, but I think it give the Cubs more flexibility with Garza.

  • I'm good at 4 & 55 all day long.

  • Off topic: I saw a tweet that Junior Lake has been nominated for MVP of the Dominican Winter League. I see that he also hit a grand slam Sunday and is currently hitting .342.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SFToby:

    Awesome. Maybe Lake can break the roster come spring. That would be incredible'

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    He's been playing the outfield this winter, but I wonder if he can become our regular 3B if given a chance this spring?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SFToby:

    OF 3B, whatever I just want him to make the team.

    I was really getting scared of the whispers of converting him to a pitcher if his bat didn't get better!

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Turning Lake into a pitcher has not been seriously considered by the Cubs yet. It's only a desperate, last resort scenario.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    He's still considered kind of raw as a hitter so not sure he'll get that opportunity. He may have to go to AAA like everyone else. I hope he gets a long look, though.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    He has been unbelievable. Its getting harder to doubt him. Really looking forward to seeing him in spring training.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    He always hits well in winter ball but it hasn't translated to the regular season.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    I thought he hit well last year in AA considering the jump and how raw he is. He also hit well in Daytona the year before. That said, I doubt he's anywhere near ready for MLB pitching. Iowa probably the best bet right now.

  • The Nationals, Phillies, Cubs, Mariners and Rangers are all interested in free agent reliever J.P. Howell, reports MLB.com's Bill Ladson.
    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/at-least-five-teams-interested-in-jp-howell.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#KHcftRWu8xUzmFoS.99

    Be a nice addition to the pen...

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    Actually not a huge fan of his. Doesn't throw enough strikes for a finesse guy, in my opinion.

    Looks like a few smart teams out there think differently though. So maybe I'm wrong.

  • Well, maybe this time, sign him and then trade garza to rangers, that would be like such a coup, or a coub?

  • In reply to eddie35:

    Ha! It does give them some flexibility with Garza. They could end up keeping him and build a solid top 3 until the kids are ready.

  • fb_avatar

    I think the Rangers are in on guys like Swisher, Pierzynski and Lohse. I bet the Cubs sign EJ before the weekend. 4/54 is my guess, maybe less if he is no longer with Boras.

  • In reply to Jive Wired:

    We know they're in on Pierzynski. And I agree they should be in on Swisher and Lohse too. 4/54 a lot of money to me for EJax, but Cubs likely will have to overpay if they want him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Well, he made $11m last year. 4/52 is only a 2.5m bump in AAV and I am thinking the guy deserves a raise. Because he is not with Boras he may get a little less. I saw today the Rangers are all over Cody Ross. They also have Martin Perez in the bushers and by all accounts he's ready. So why are they even in - especially to pay make that kind of commitment on what would be a #4 or #5 starter. If SD is truly out - maybe the Cubs are the only suitors. And now we are on radio silence while his agent finds another potential match (or tries to). The feeling I have is it gets done at the Cubs price, whatever they are willing to pay, anyway.

    Now I catch myself saying "only a 2.5m bump" - I could retire if I had the equivelent of Jackson's salary for one year. Sigh.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jive Wired:

    meant 4/54. John, wasn't Jackson originally traded from Tampa to Minnesota for Garza? That would be kind of an odd turn of events.

  • I was surprised to see Jackson was pretty consistent the last two seasons, that's a good sign. But I guess I still don't trust him. Plus, he strikes me as the kind of player Cubs fans will turn on and make a scapegoat if he has a few bad starts in a row.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Good point. Jackson could come in as the Cubs top acquisition of the offseason. Would have higher salary and much higher expectations than say Baker and Feldman -- yet it's not unreasonable to think the latter two can outperform him, particularly Baker. Could be a recipe for disaster if he has an off year.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm hoping we get Jackson.

    I wasn't big on Sanchez, but due to the situation, I think we could gain a lot.

    If we get Jackson, we could make Texas even more desperate.

    They need SP and OF.
    We could package Garza + Sori and cash to get a nice Olt+ package.

    The might not be big on Sori, but maybe they could be persuaded if it gets them Garza. Especially with us fitting a large part if the bill.

  • Jackson has moved around a ton the last few years and the Nats, which ended up spending a lot for Haren didn't resign him. Is there a personality thing going on here? seems like lesser pitchers have found far more interest? Any thoughts John?

  • In reply to RTGrules:

    If there's something wrong with his makeup, I'm not aware of it. It could be something similar to Bauer or Marquis, as I mentioned above, where perhaps he is stubborn with his approach. That's just speculating, though. He doesnt have the reputation of someone like Zambrano -- or even as Garza once did -- as a hothead or anything like that. Cubs are big on mental makeup, so I have to think they've looked into it.

  • Here's a hypothetical. Cubs are looking to be way under their budget this year, maybe more than $20M. Let's say we sign Jackson to a 4, $48M deal. Obviously, that'd likely be more than everyone else was willing to pay. Now, let's say Jackson has a great start but the team sucks. Jackson would have 3.5 years and $42M left. What if the Cubs made Jackson available and are willing to pitch in that $20M they're under budget? An Edwin Jackson on the market for 3.5 years at about $6M a year should interest every team out there and net a big package. I wonder if this could be a new way for the Cubs to use payroll to acquire prospects.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Sounds like a great plan to me. I'd also welcome it as a sign that the Cubs are willing to spend with the big boys. The gulf between the Cubs and the top spending teams is vast.
    Looking at last year's team payroll figures, the Cubs were #10 in payroll. Looking downward, the difference between the Cubs, at #10 on the list, versus Washington at #16, is only $11M. But looking upward, the difference between the Cubs and six spots above them (The Angels at #4) is $52M.
    We’re seeing a crowded middle of the pack with the Cubs, Cards, Mets, Brewers, etc… and then huge step up once you get to the top five payrolls. I'd like a sign that the Cubs intend join the upper echelon of team payrolls. It's possible that they instead intend on remaining in that crowded middle going forward.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to baseballet:

    Spending ≠ winning

  • In reply to baseballet:

    baseballballet - saying this school of thought is flawed is an understatement at best. why on earth would you want a high payroll when it is becoming more and more obvious that throwing around money is not a viable way to win. i would much rather build from within, then spend like the nats and have a bright future like they do, rather than spend like the dodgers, yankees and angels and end up with a bleak future full of bloated, unmovable contracts. i thought cubs fans learned something from the hendry era. guess not...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to matt:

    Amen!

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    That is certainly an option and it's a creative way to get prospects. At his age, I have to think the Cubs are considering keeping Jackson too. I believe that was the case with Sanchez. At the money they were reportedly offering, it seems to me they considered him a core piece. Jackson isn't too far off of Sanchez in terms of results and age, so I'm thinking they plan to keep him unless things go in the wrong direction next year.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I completely agree with this concept and was intending to post it here myself. MLB has lowered the cost of prospects through the draft with the new collective bargaining agreement. Teams are not allowed to spend as much there in an effort to level the playing field between big and small markets. But how much would we truly pay for some of these prospects if, for example, they were available as free agents (see Jorge Soler and $30 M)? Look what the Cubs got back for a year and a couple months of Paul Maholm. Even Geovany Soto got us a decent pitching prospect in the end, in Barret Loux.
    Why not overpay a bit if we need to on free agents, then when the time is right, pay some salary to make the deal more appealing, and trade them for as many prospects as possible? If we feel we are still getting surplus value on the prospects compared to the cash spent, the only drawback to this approach is if the team gets a reputation for doing this, and no one wants to sign with us as free agents anymore. That and you may be holding prospects back at some point that are ready for the majors by signing these free agents and putting them on the 25 man roster. Perhaps this is a large market advantage that still exists, especially for a rebuilding team like the Cubs.

    By the way John, love the sight. This is only my second post here. (Don't confuse me with Ben20, he stole my name!)

  • I don't think $$ is a big factor right now. It is just that not many big money signings fit the developement stage that the Cubs find themselves. If a players improves their team long term they will pay, but do not want to overlay in $$ or years.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    I agree that a huge payroll is less of a concern in a total rebuilding year. But I'd like to see some indication that the Cubs will indeed by one of the major spending teams going forward.
    With the crazy payrolls of the Dodgers, Yankees and Red Sox, it's doubtful the Cubs would ever match their spending. So that's three teams right there that will have an annual advantage over the Cubs that Theo will have to overcome somehow. If you add Texas, the Angels, Philadelphia and Detroit to that list, now you're talking about seven teams that will have a payroll advantage over the Cubs each season. That's a lot of teams we'd have to leapfrog by means other than payroll in order to be an annual contender.
    I'd like to believe that the Cubs will be a top five spending team going forward but haven't seen any indication as of yet. With the changing team payroll landscape, the question remains, where will the Cubs fall on the economic ladder?

  • In reply to baseballet:

    The Cubs only need to be an annual contender in their own division. If they win the division, they're in the postseason. That's where the Cubs have, always have had, and always will have an advantage. They always have more total revenue than any other team in their division. Using that revenue wisely is the key.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    Payroll is not a measurement of success, Mr. Hendry. The cubs want to build their organization like the rays have done. the difference is, they will have money to put themselves over the top when it's needed, unlike the rays.

  • In reply to matt:

    Payroll is the biggest indicator of sustained success in MLB. It is not the only indicator, but if you spend less than seven other teams year after year then it's a hurdle you have to overcome in other ways each season. It's a competitive disadvantage.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    payroll is one of the biggest indicators of success. sustained success however, has to be done with the help of a solid farm system. there is no other way to do it. hendry era cub teams prove why that's true. you're right that lack of spending ability is a competitive disadvantage, the cubs don't have that problem though. there are just very few high profile FA's on the market that make sense for the cubs situation right now.

  • In reply to matt:

    I don't disagree regarding wanting a good farm system, or that in a total rebuilding year you don't want to sign too many top dollar free agents to long term contracts.
    My question is where will the Cubs will fall on the payroll ladder going forward. Will they be one of the top five spending teams? Top ten? The more teams that outspend them, the harder it will be to have sustained success.
    How much a free agent player is "worth" is a function of how much an team can afford to spend. A Porsche is outrageously overpriced to me, but it's an affordable car to Donald Trump, especially since he is also considering a Bentley.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    pinpointing where the payroll will be in the future is impossible and pointless. based on statements made by ownership and FO it seems they will spend necessary money on players when the timing is right. I'm not implying theoyer will have a blank check, but there's no reason to think that they are or will be afraid to spend big money.

  • In reply to matt:

    The budget determines everything the Cubs do. That doesn't mean you have to be interested in it, to each there own.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    "The budget determines everything the Cubs do. That doesn't mean you have to be interested in it, to each there own"

    never said i don't care about the budget. you said that you would "like to see some indication that the Cubs will indeed by one of the major spending teams going forward."
    i tried to explain to you that they have indicated they will spend when it makes sense. apparently that answer wasn't good enough for you. what kind of indication are you looking for anyway? you want them to spend now for the sake of spending just to appease impatient fans? if so, i'll go ahead and tell you that's not gonna happen....

  • Pass on this guy.

  • Don't know how this EJax thing will shake-out but one theory on Theo's "bad luck" with free agents as of late. We can't discount the possibility (especially on a Boras client) that Theo is acting like that guy at your fantasy draft auction who is just deliberately bidding guys up to make people either panic or swoop in on a value.

    Theo's got a big pool of Ricketts money and the stage is already set that 2013 is going to be another "we stinks" season. If he hits on a Sanchez or EJax at his price he's happy and if he doesn't he bid up a potential competitor and makes the use their resources now as opposed to 1 or 2 more years from now when Theo is going to really be pushing some chips onto the table. Talk about a win-win situation that only certain big-market teams have the capital to pull off

  • In reply to Ryno2Grace:

    That is the danger of being a big market team with money to spend. Agents can use you as leverage. I'm sure the Cubs are aware of this too, but even if they don't get their guys this year, it will pay off eventually. In a year or two, FAs are going to want to come here.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Totally agree John - there are worse things in the world than being 1 of maybe only 10 other teams max that afford to take $50M flyers on an SP who from a W-L perspective they won't really need until 1 or 2 more years from now....

  • fb_avatar

    As do I. 4 years to a durable pitcher who will be pitching at the age 29-thru 32 yrs.. A guy who who's good for 30 + starts and 200 innings per year. 4 YRS. an average of say 15 million per year seems like a more than fair offer.Do I expect the Cubs to get his autograph on a contract,in a word NO.

  • fb_avatar

    You know whoever gets him is going to overpay... If its us I can live with it..

  • In reply to Colman Conneely:

    I can live with it to a point. I'd be okay with 4/48, after that it gets a little dicey, in my opinion.

  • fb_avatar

    It's more and more clear to me that Theo/Jed have 2014 targeted as a competitive year, with next year a possibility if the bats come around unexpectedly. We're probably not going to have a very good offense next year, but if we sign Jackson we have the potential to have a very good rotation, and the bullpen's looking good too. I bet their projecting the lineup will be improving from within over this season and next, and given the lack of high level pitchers in the system, they're building the rotation through acquisitions with an eye towards a very strong rotation in a couple of years once we sort out the one-year deals, rehabbing prospects and attempted conversions.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    Hit it... Dead on I agree 100%

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I will give a qualified "I agree" to what you write.

    There are several 'Ifs' in the rotation - mostly having to do with having healthy & productive arms. Garza & Baker are two fishing in the pool of starters. If they are healthy,.... the rotation has potential to be an excellent one. Samardzija needs to demonstrate last year wasn't a fluke, Feldman needs to recapture the form he had a couple of years ago, Wood needs to build consistency into the flashes he displayed last season,... and somebody has to fill the gap until Baker can be relied upon.

    I am very happy with the way the Bullpen is shaping up. It was a hole last season other than Camp being moderately consistent all year, Russell playing well, and Marmol's end of season play. Some very good additions (and additions by subtraction) have been made for this season.

    The offense could be suprising - but don't hold your breath. It will all depend on Stewart playing up to his potential, a mix of moderate power / good defense / good OBP OF and IF players, and whether (if he isn't traded) Soriano has a good and healthy year. Rizzo & Castro are about the only two hitters I have much confidence in at this stage.

    If Jackson has fixed his swing, and if Sappelt has found a hitting groove in Winter Ball that he can maintain, the OF could be quite good by end of season.

  • There's no persuasive reason for the Cubs to sign Edwin Jackson. He's a good No. 3 to No. 4 SP in his late prime. But that's not a rare commodity. Nor was Anibal Sanchez. Thee'll be guys just like them on the open market next winter. Wait another year to do that, and you have a smarter timeline match of that expensive pitcher's four years corresponding to Cubs' upward ascendance to consistent contention. One good, new pitcher isn't going to put the Cubs into '13 playoffs. This is only the second year of a comitted, ground-up rebuild. The emphasis should still be on the build-up, aquiring and developing as many prospects as possible. Low-cost, one-year fliers on Feldmans and Bakers fits the rebuld much better for now. If they do well, you flip 'em for good prospects. If they don't, no big deal. Again, an E-Jax type is always available in the marketplace, and it's too early in the rebuild to go there.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to michaelc:

    They might be always available, but there will always be fewer than demand, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to wait until next year to try if you think you might have a competitive team in 2014. Clearly the front office see Jackson as a #3 - maybe even a #3 that still has some upside. And it's not like we have other #3's lurking around who are good bets to be with the team in 2014. I expect, given their pursuit of Sanchez and Jackson, that the front office has 2014 in their sites. Given that, they could have (assuming and extension of Garza and signing of Jackson) a rotation of:

    1. Garza
    2. Samardzija
    3. Jackson

    And then 4-6 get filled with some combination of a resigned Baker or Feldman, Wood, Vizcaino, Cabrera or someone they pick up next off-season. That's a more-than-respectable rotation. Jackson's been consistent, so while it's always a risk to forecast out a full season, it's probably less of one in his case.

    So to reiterate what I said above, this move only makes sense if Theo/Jed are thinking in terms of competing in 2014. With that in mind, it's not a bad pickup.

  • I just see this team collecting arms this next year. Whether it is Jackson, Vizcaino, Baker, or Fedlman, they will then pare them with whomever they draft this summer, whether it is Appel, Manaea, or Stanek, along with second round pick, that's a lot of arms they are stockpiling. I don't see a lot of position depth aside from the middle infield. The only minor leaguer they might part with would be Vogelbach. Part of me believes that Dan the Man could be more powerful a hitter than Rizzo. Unfortunately, fielding would be an issue. This next year, the Cubs will be trying to continue adding pitching depth along with Catching and developing that talent in the minors. I can't wait to get to Kane County, Beloit and Clinton to see them play.

  • fb_avatar

    Or they'll sign Villanueva:
    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/cubs-to-sign-carlos-villanueva.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Leave a comment