Cubs sign Edwin Jackson for 4 years/$52M

Cubs sign Edwin Jackson for 4 years/$52M

We heard earlier today that the Cubs had signed Carlos Villanueva pending physicals.  Now we hear from CSN's Patrick Mooney that the Cubs have signed Edwin Jackson to a 4 year, $52M.

Jon Heyman reports that there is no NTC (no trade clause) in this agreement.

It's a little higher than I would have liked, but it is a bargain when you compare it to some of the deals out there right now.  Jackson isn't all that far below Sanchez and yet the Cubs got him for $28M less.  Overall, you can't complain as the Cubs have locked him up for the rest of his prime years (ages 29-32)

For Jackson, this deal means the kind of security and stability he hasn't had despite a solid career.  The Cubs are his 7th team and he has yet to turn 29.

On the mound, Jackson is a hard-throwing athletic pitcher who continues to improve his command as he matures.

Last year he went 10-11 with a 4.03 ERA (3.79 FIP).  The year was slightly down from his previous three, but I expect him to rebound and provide the Cubs with a solid #3 starter and innings eater.

He's also a possible replacement for Matt Garza, should the Cubs trade him as has been rumored for a full year now.  He's similar in age and stuff to Garza, perhaps a tick lower, but he has been more consistent in his career.

As for his repertoire, Jackson has a mid 90s fastball and plus slider to go with an average curve and change.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: edwin jackson


Leave a comment
  • john do u know any details about the contract? Im really hoping he gets a 4-6 mil signing bonus to make his salary better.

    but overall pretty happy with the signing, it looks like we'll move at least 2 starters and maybe 4 by the trade deadline this year.

  • In reply to jshmoran:

    The Cubs have a whole lot of options. I was hoping for 4/48 on the deal but I'm not going to quibble too much. He's a good mid-rotation workhorse.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    i feel the same i was hoping for something in the 11-12 mil AAV range, but im not gonna cry over 1 mil more, however giving him a 4 mil signing bonus makes this contract 4/48 and makes everyone happy.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Assuming the information is correct - I'm guessing that part of the 'extra' in price was to buy that lack of a No Trade clause in the contract.

    Probably a good signing overall - Solid if not spectacular starting pitcher, high but not obscene pricetage, and for a guy who has the stuff to be a good one if he can get more consistent.

    This one is more obviously a signing with a look ahead for where this time might be competative - if not this season, perhaps in 2014 or 2015.

  • Are you kidding me? That's four starting pitchers in a market that was very thin. That's aggressive and impressive.

  • In reply to KSCubsFan:

    I agree, this is implementation of a plan, something cub's fans are unaccustomed to seeing. Good job by FO and ownership to move on things this agressively. These guys are good.

  • Looks like he snagged a NTC. How do you feel about that?

  • In reply to Good Captain:

    According to Heyman, he did not get an NTC.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Lets hope that is right. It seems they are not giving NTCs like the previous regime. Another good business practice.

  • In reply to Good Captain:

    Where'd you see that?

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Off of MLB Trading Rumor site. "The Cubs have agreed to sign Edwin Jackson to a four-year, $52MM contract, Patrick Mooney of reports (on Twitter). The deal includes a no-trade clause, Jon Heyman of reports (on Twitter). "

  • In reply to Good Captain:

    It was wrong and has since been corrected. No NTC.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Meanwhile, Jim Hendry is camping under his desk at Yankee hq.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    Nah, the Yanks were never in on Jackson. He's 29, not 39, which is their roster's average age.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    Must be a big desk.

  • fb_avatar

    Keith Law in his chat today was given the option to either have Sanchez at 5/80 or Jackson at 4/52 and he picked Jackson. I am the EXCITES! especially because I completely overvalue Law's opinions.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Law is as smart as they come. I value his opinion as well.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    I don't see how either is worth that. Is anyone going to Wrigley Field simply because Jackson is pitching that day? He doesn't hit me as the second coming of Ken Holtzman or Fergie Jenkins. Up to now, he has been strictly journeyman.

  • In reply to jack:

    Fans will show up if the Cubs win more ballgames. Period.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Exactly and thats the bottom line...........................

  • In reply to jack:

    And who out there was another Holtzman or Fergie that we could afford?
    Jackson may be another Billy Hands, okay? And I paid to see him all right.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    There is a difference between setting the market, and letting the market make you do something.

  • fb_avatar

    signing shows McThoyer are going to be patient with pitching in the farm system. They probably add college stud in the draft, who could be ready in 2015, with Vizcaino, and others starting to climb up. I see Garza, Samardjiza, and Jackson being dealt in the next 1-3 years. 2015 should be Baez, Soler, 2013 #1 SP, to go with rizzo, castro and other influx of talent from trades and drafts...

  • In reply to Niren Desai:

    I don't think Samardjiza gets traded. At a certain point, the FO has to pick out who is going to be the core rotation guys and I think JS can be that guy. One could also make an arugment for Garza and Jackson, but JS has the most upside (and the most trade value).

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    Agree with this.

  • In reply to Niren Desai:

    No reason to trade Samardzija at his low salary in next few years. Garza possibly, same with Jackson.

    I could see them keeping 2 of the 3, though. Prospects are nice, but you have to have a couple of established guys too.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Well, there is one reason...

    It's because his salary is low for the next few years. The Cubs have money, it's talent that they lack. Trading Samardzija is the Cubs best shot at getting a big return.

    That's said, I don't want them to do it, and they would have to be blown away by the offer for me to be happy about it.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Getting a big return in every trade would be fantastic but in mho it's getting the steady quality return that is where this group going

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Glad to start hearing the call for keeping some of the established guys around. Trading for top prospects is all well and good (and yes I realize we are rebuilding) but at some point in time we have to say "this is a guy we want to keep around for a while". Eventually we' get to the point where we have a nice mix of 10year-7year-5year-2year veterans with a rookie or 2 thrown in and we only have to make a couple of moves each year to maintain a high level of talent.

  • In reply to carolinacub:

    Couldn't agree more. I understand trading highly paid vets who don't factor in long term but you have to put a core together if you want to win anytime soon.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I'm surprised at the love for Samardjiza, I was impressed by his first full year as a starter, but he is still learning to pitch and its still unknown how his body will react to starting. I would not propose we deal him tomorrow, but if his value is ultra high and if we're building towards a flush of talent in 2015, I would flip him for 2-3 guys that will be 22-24 in 2015 vs him at 30 and making 8-10m by 2015. I think we're gonna see similar things with Barney for sure.

    I have the cubs payroll around 105M, with projections for garza and samardjiza, and 10 guys making the minimum. I wonder if a soriano/marmol deals could be close. Could save 10-15m. We really need another bat or 2, in the middle.

  • In reply to Niren Desai:

    He's cheap, won't be a FA until 2016. Will still be cost-controlled when the Cubs should be competing. Hes just getting into his prime, since he had a late start. He's got really low miles on his arm and he's in prime physical condition. The Cubs should be vying for a pennant by 2015 -- why would they want a 22 year old pitcher instead? This is Chicago, not a small market town that's forced to reload everytime they get close. The only reason I'd trade him at that point is if they aren't competing for a title -- and that would be a huge disappointment.

    You have to start building a stable, veteran team at some point, you can't keep trading players and getting prospects.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Sure there is, particularly if he's not receptive to a contract extension. Samardzija is supposed to be a FA after 2015, meaning he's likely only going to be around for 1 year when the Cubs are competitive. If he's not interested in a contract extension right now, then he has quite a bit of value to other teams that plan to compete in the next few years, but don't want to spend a lot.

    The Cubs should model the Rays when it comes to young talent. Want to stay here? Great. Here's a contract that will pay you well over a period of time, but won't break the bank. Want to wait and see if you can get more later? That's fine too. Enjoy Atlanta.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I don't think teams are ready to give you a ton for Samardzija.

    The Rays don't have the luxury that the Cubs do. They pull that high wire act because they have to, but if they had the money they'd be keeping guys like David Price.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    And I'm sure Atlanta will be happy to take everyone's good pitchers and compete for titles while the Cubs can console themselves with their superior efficiency.

    The Cubs would be foolish not to use their financial advantage.

  • In reply to Niren Desai:

    It might be, it could be, ... if the cubs can hang on to both castro and rizzo, then they will be doing very well with their rebuilding efforts.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    castro was locked up for seven years this season, and there's no reason to think rizzo can't be locked up once he proves his worth

  • In reply to matt:

    I'm pretty sure they'll lock up Rizzo when they get the chance.

  • john do you think the cubs might end up using 6 startes with the amount we have?

  • In reply to kingpro98:

    Nooo. 6 starters means that your best starter gets less starts throughout the year. Every start for your 6th man means one less from on of your top 5 guys. Generally not a good strategy.

  • Well this is great news! I couldn't be happier right now, after dabbling in the Sanchez sweepstakes and ending up with potentially two starters instead for less money.

    Total trust in Theo and what they are trying to do, it seems to be a perfect blend of value signings with legitimate pitching upgrades to the rotation and to the bullpen that were so sorely needed.

    I think we can all agree that you get a surplus of pitching and good things happen. Also, it allows them to build up the young pitching prospects in the minors without rushing anybody, and gives added flexibility with the guys like Vizcaino and Baker coming back from injuries,

    Nothing bad about this, Great day Cubs Fans!!

  • John, loving every minute of this!!!! We now have pitching out the ***!!!! Couple of questions though. How many players are we over the 40 man roster now, who gets dropped off, & could you see the Cubs trading anyone of the abudance of pitchers we have(Garza) for some offensive help or the future? Don't look now but the future might be on the near horizon!!!!!

  • fb_avatar

    What difference should it make between 48 M or 52 M? Individually as fans we more than make up for it in high to higher ticket prices. We can't go to the post with the same old ,same old players from last season. If nothing else we probably lead this off season in pitchers signed. I expect when the smoke clears we'll be trading for a few hitters with all the pitching we accumulated.Count on it.

  • Is there a team out there dumb enough to trade for Garza before Spring Training?

  • I don't think it will happen unless someone overwhelms the Cubs -- and that seems very unlikely at this point.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree.

  • fb_avatar

    Brett Taylor from Bleachernation just tweeted a crazy stat. All the pitchers the Cubs signed COMBINED don't equal what Sanchez got. That is potentially a ton of hidden value for the Cubs.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Wow, so in a way, the Cubs traded 5 years of Anibal Sanchez for 4 years of Edwin Jackson, 2 years (with an option for a 3rd) of Carlos Villanueva, 1 year of Scott Baker, 1 year of Scott Feldman and two 2 years of Kyuji Fujikawa. Oh, and some cash.

    Not a bad trade if I do say so myself.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    The Cubs must have really liked Sanchez but it's hard to believe this wasn't a better use of their money overall.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    That's what I was saying when I had such a problem with the Cubs willingness to fork over $75 mil for Sanchez. I also feel like the ceiling is higher with Jackson. Not saying he'll reach it, but at least there is the potential for upside

  • fb_avatar

    I like what the cubs are doing with these pitchers.. I like to think of it as their "buying time" with these 2 year deals.. Untill they restock the pitching in the farm system through the draft.. Jackson is here to stay I know.. But baker, Feldman Ahhh idk.. Kaplan tweeted today dont expect them to flip them.. I don't agree with that.. Good signing

  • In reply to Colman Conneely:

    I don't know if even Jackson is here to stay. If he's performing well, a three year contract at 13 million might make him more attractive to potential buyers than if he was going into free agency.

  • This dude is an absolute innings eater, and durable. Durability is way underrated in sports in my opinion. Nice sign Cubs!

  • In reply to Justin:

    It is indeed -- have to think the Cubs factored that into the equation.

  • fb_avatar

    Edwin Jackson, 4.10 ERA last 3 years (598 IP), Greinke 3.83 ERA (604 IP) And Grienke's worth 100 million more.... Mhhmmmm idk bout that one.

  • In reply to Colman Conneely:

    If you really start looking at Greinke, you have to wonder how much more you're really getting overall -- though he is capable of putting up dominant years, I guess.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Perceptions are funny things.

  • Lucky break the Nats didn't make him a qualifying offer. Gotta love all this depth. But how in the hell is the rotation gonna shake out? Wood and Villanueva to the pen first half? Trade before the season starts? There's an article or three for ya. Nice problem to have, any year, but especially after last year. Go Cubs!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Carne Harris:

    If you can't figure out what the rotation is going to look like because you have MORE than enough options, you are in good shape. That is a good problem to have. So at this point who cares what the rotation will be, just enjoy we should have a good and deep rotation.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Love having this problem for a change!

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Uh... yeah, I just said it was a good problem to have. Still fun to think about. Like a kid on Christmas Eve.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    If I had to guess, Wood and Villanueva are probably the odd men out once Baker gets back. In Wood's case, he could add a lefty to the pen. Feldman also a possibility.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    The cubs are harvesting value off the Jays and Nats farm systems, also benifting from those teams rebuilding efforts that allow them to let ploayers like jackson and villenueva go. Plus, these players got little or no attention from the national media due to where they played and some of the higher visiblilty players they were overshadwoed by, so the cubs can get unheralded undervalued starting pitching to fill a need but on their terms. Keep it going guys, we appreciate what you are doing.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    It's like some weird Orwellian east coast bias ecosystem working out to our advantage. I like it. Nice to have smart peeps in the FO playing all the angles.

  • Comparing what we got (Jackson) on what we missed out on (Sanchez)....

    Typical 162 game season

    Jackson -11 wins, 4.40 era, 197 IP, 150 K, 1.44 WHIP
    Sanchez - 11 wins, 3.75 era, 204 IP, 172 K, 1.35 WHIP

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Pretty close -- they're certainly not $30M apart.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    How about $28M? True that the Tigers gave Sanchez $80M versus $52M for Jackson, but I think the AAV is the true measure and there is only a $3M difference there. Isn't saying that Sanchez and Jackson aren't $28M apart like saying that Dempster and Jackson aren't $25.5M apart?

    I have to say, I'm not crazy at all about this Jackson deal. For $52M I would expect much better than a 4.40 career ERA and a career 1.44 WHIP. Tom Gorzellany has a 1.44 career WHIP and a 4.41 career ERA, and he just signed for two years for a total of only $6M. I'm wondering if there aren't some good reasons that a 29 year old pitcher is already with his eighth team. Call me skeptical, but I sure hope Theo and Jed know what they are doing on this one.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to WSorBust:

    I could be wrong, but I thought Anibal Sanchez got 5 yrs so the difference is prob around 1/2 that number

  • "Last year he went 10-11 with a 4.03 ERA (3.79 FIP). The year was slightly down from his previous three, but I expect him to rebound and provide the Cubs with a solid #3 starter and innings eater."

    John, I don't know if I agree that last year was a slight down year for EJax. True, his ERA went up from 3.79 to 4.03, but his peripherals improved. His Hits/9 went down from 10.1 to 8.2. He improved his K/9 6.7 to 8.0 while maintaining his respectable BB/9 of 2.8.

    It was the first year since his 3.9 WAR year in 2009 that he allowed less hits than innings pitched and only his 2nd in his career. Yes, his WAR dipped from the previous year, but was basically the same as his 2010 WAR.

    In many ways, you could argue that last year was an improvement over 2011.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    I guess when you take into account the great year he had in '09, then yes, last year is down from the previous three. But it looks to me that it's an improvement over the previous two.

  • Last season the Cubs were playing decent ball until they traded Dempster and Maholm, and Garza went down with his elbow injury. That left Samardzija and Wood and minor leaguers. Now the Cubs are deep in starting pitching, the pen is improved, and we haven't given up anybody. We may not contend next season, but we're much improved.

  • In reply to clarkaddison:

    True, to date, the Cubs haven't given up anybody. But I don't know how long that will last. Take Garza out of this rotation and it's not looking so deep. Deeper, yes. Most definitely improved in that regard even without Garza, but if he's moved...

  • It wouldn't surprise me to see the Cubs add more relief pitching.

  • Yeah, they haven't stopped yet. Especially if they are of the NRI variety.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs sign Bourn to a reasonable, from the teams' point of view, deal.

  • fb_avatar

    I don't think such a deal exists.

    Pretty sure TheoJed find losing a 2nd round pick unreasonable.

    Especially in a year they pick second, with a very small sandwich round.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    This, I think, is the key thing with all the pitching signings to date, you haven't given up your 2'nd round pick, and that is huge given where the farm system is and where the cubs are picking.

    At this point, with the deals they've been able to make so far, I can't see them giving up that pick. YOu can compare the contract terms, the stats of the new cubs pitchers and the team budget all day, but not giving up that pick may be the bottom line for making these deals the way they did.

  • fb_avatar

    John you think we will be going at position players now?? Coco crisp?? That's one of the guys I like..

  • John, loving every minute of this!!!! We now have pitching out the ***!!!! Couple of questions though. How many players are we over the 40 man roster now, who gets dropped off, & could you see the Cubs trading anyone of the abudance of pitchers we have(Garza) for some offensive help or the future? Don't look now but the future might be on the near horizon!!!!!


  • In reply to Jer Bear:

    I'm not John, but to answer your questions, it looks like the Cubs are 3 players over the 40-man limit at the moment. And, I sure think it's likely that someone like Garza is likely to be traded. Whether it would be for pitching prospects or offensive help, I don't know. I personally would want to acquire the pitching prospects.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jer Bear:

    I assume Campana and Rosario are definitely gone. The third choice gets a tad dicey, maybe a trade or Concepcion?

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Maysonett, Raley, Rusin? Any of those guys seem replaceable. The 4 SPs signed this offseason don't suggest much faith in Rusin or Raley.

  • In reply to CubsML:

    whoops, Maysonett is not on the 40 man.

  • In reply to Jer Bear:

    Looks like they'll have to make room for Jackson, Villanueva, Shierholtz. Am I missing someone? Fujikwawa maybe?

    This thing suddenly looks a lot closer.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    The Cubs have to clear 3 40-man roster spots to sign Jackson, Villanueva, Schierholz.

    Going by AZ Phil's roster, but the Cubs cannot DFA Rosario or Rusin at this point in the offseason (or Rondon either).

    So, I would have to think Campana will be DFA'ed, perhaps Lendy Castillo, and maybe Brooks Raley. Not sure how it works with Concepcion, but nobody is going to want his contract, that's for sure.

    One thing in our favor, alot of teams are crunched on the 40-man now, or have to leave slots for FAs, so I think there is a good chance that Campana, Raley, and Castillo could all be DFA'ed and eventually assigned to Iowa

  • All of a sudden The Cubs have a deep, versatile, young- ish, cheap- ish pitching staff. What' s really encouraging is that we have a few guys with better stuff than career numbers to this point. Jackson, Garza, & Samardzija all have plus enough stuff to pitch like true #1' s for four or five start stretches. Two solid swing men with Villanueva and Feldman. Wood could be a solid swingman as well. Baker should be solid. This doesn't look like a 90 plus loss team to me.

  • This makes my Xmas! FO is trying and maybe more presents to come? GET AS MANY ARMS AS WE CAN

  • fb_avatar

    Now we can pull a fast one and ship him to the Rangers for Olt. It's brilliant. Brilliant, I tell you!

  • Need Ian Stewart and Brett Jackson to produce along with the core bats of Castro , Rizzo, Soriano to have a chance . But the pitching staff is miles ahead of last years and all flexible and flippable contracts. Theo and Jed done good.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    They will need some surprise years on offense to compete but I think that pitching and defense is approaching playoff caliber. Offense nowhere near that, unfortunately. At least not without some big years from unexpected sources.

  • Thanks Quedub!! I agree totally!! Any thoughts on who gets released? I was thinking Campana, Clevenger, & the last one might be a trade.

  • In reply to Jer Bear:

    Soriano has to be high on the list right now. Campana and Clevenger are in some trouble. Possibly a pitcher like Rusin since he's a bit older but not always easy to sneak LHPs through, especially starters.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    According to AZ Phil, Rusin cannot be DFA'ed until near spring training (20 days before or after, can't remember)

    Campana is almost for sure, and maybe Raley, and Lendy Castillo. Not sure how it works with Candelario, though.

    We also can't DFA Rosario or Rondon

  • In reply to Zonk:

    Maybe they can move Rusin some other way. Why would they not be able to waive Rosario? It's happened to him several times this offseason already.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John, not 100% sure, but they can't DFA Rosario. He can be WAIVED, which makes him, I think, a complete FA. If he is DFA'ed, I think he would have to be added to someone else's 40-man, otherwise we could assign him to Iowa unilaterally.

    I think that's how it works, not sure.

    There are rules on timing so you can cycle guys through your roster easily and assign to AAA

  • I'd like to wish everyone here at Cubs Den Happy Holidays! I'm looking out my windows in south central Wisconsin at a blizzard yet still thinking about baseball. I'm ready for those wonderful words, "Pitchers and catchers report".

  • Thanks Ray! Same to you! I think I need to put down the countdown again on the side rail for the pitcher/catcher date.

    I hope you keep that blizzard for yourselves, though :)

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    You're welcome, John, and thank you! The countdown would be great! LOL about the blizzard, we have a few hours of it left. Not sure about your forecast.

  • Samardzija

    That's 7 deep before reaching the likes of Raley or Rusin. And assuming they're all healthy, that's a fairly effective 1-3. Not elite, but solid. When I look at that 7 deep rotation knowing the Cubs are entering year two of a massive rebuild, it seems obvious that it is this deep so that they can trade guys later on. Garza possibly at the end of ST. Baker at the trade deadline. And who knows who else.

    The Cubs also have lots of options in the bullpen and they are continuing to add them with minor league signings like Cory Wade and waiver wire claims like Sandy Rosario. This, too, also screams trade.

    I see plenty of movement still to come for this roster. I don't see this as depth necessarily like it is normally thought of, you know, in case of injury or poor performance. I see this as getting as many lottery tickets you can, see which one comes in, and then trade for as much long term talent you can get.

  • This is great news! The Cubs added a free agent with All Star upside. If they add one more, hopefully in the outfield, I'll be really happy with this off season.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    Could use a CF who plays good defense. I'm happy already -- have to admit I didn't expect this much, but they've done it all so wisely. Lots of good value with upside.

  • How much time do they have to get down to the 40-man limit.
    I don't see all 3 going to the minors. How about all 3 for some
    non-40-man roster prospects

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    They can try but more than likely they'll get guys who probably won't be as good (since they have to subtract value of roster spot). They're probably better off trying to sneak them through waivers.

  • fb_avatar

    I have to think that this is a sign that Garza is definitely out before the season.

    Campana , Clevenger, and maybe DeJesus are out.

    Barney too, if for no other reason as he'd be a valuable part of a trade package.

    And although I thought he was part of their long-term plans it wouldn't surprise me anymore if Shark goes st the deadline. I'm still leaning toward long term piece for him, though.

    And Edwin Jackson could potentially be worth a lot after this season, or the '14 deadline if we can coach some consistency into him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    I think we need to calm down with the TRADE EVERYONE mentallity. Sure some players are signed with the idea that they can be flipped for prospects, but not everyone has to be. I can't see this front office giving Edwin Jackson a 4 year deal with the idea of trading him. If the right package comes by they will trade him, but he is a piece they are signing for the future.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Absolutely. Couldn't agree more about stopping the Let's Trade Some Guys mentality. Let's roll into the season with what we got. Can never have too much SP. Let's see what we can do with what we've got, which I believe is pretty darn good. Heck, we can very well surprise everyone with a good start and maybe, just maybe be BUYERS in late July, not sellers.

    Are you with me?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    The cubs are only going to trade Garza if their overwhelmed.. But nobody is going to do that knowing that he's coming off elbow problems.. Maybe during the season..

  • fb_avatar

    Can someone answer me this - weren't Garza and Jackson once traded for each other?

  • In reply to Jive Wired:


  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jive Wired:

    I think Garza was traded to TB for free agent big nasty Delmon Young and we all know how he came here

  • Any word on Chapman & Putman returning on minor league deal or are they gone?

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Haven't heard that they've signed.

  • So I guess Porcello is out of the mix......

    what about Liriano ?

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I think they're done with pitchers.

  • fb_avatar

    Awesome news!

    John, could you see this team shaping up like the 2001 team: all pitching and defense with little to none hitting?

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    It could wind up being something like that. We all know what happened two years later.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Can we skip the 2002 relapse this time?

  • Awesome depth... I believe they said they were going to trade 40% of the rotation by the trading deadline?

    "There might be some tough things we have to tell (fans) along the way, and there might be another trading deadline in our future where we trade away 40 percent of a really good rotation," Epstein said.

  • Man O Man! Exciting stuff. The FO is making a serious move to be competitive this year and to really look for big things in '14 and '15. I don't like the notion of trading Garza, Shark, or Jackson anytime this year -- unless we're really sunk in July. Those three can all be primo SPs in 14 and 15 when we're really going for it. No need to trade them now to get prospects who HOPEFULLY can become what they are already. We just need Almora, Jackson, Soler and a future 3B to develop by then. And one or two of the young power pitchers.

    Am I not correct that last season from the day Rizzo came up until July 30 -- when we traded Dempster and Maholm (and losing Garza to injury a few days earlier) -- the Cubs HAD THE BEST RECORD IN MLB?!

    I think RIGHT NOW we got the horses to really make something happen THIS YEAR!!!!

    Are you with me?

  • In reply to Nondorf:

    Looks like this season may not be a throwaway after all. Could be interesting if they get some hitting.

  • J.P Howell our next move as a LHRP? Or maybe they're considering moving Wood to the pen. Are we still looking at a utility RHH IF? Perhaps on an NRI/Minorleague deal.

    As far as the 40man I'd have to think Rosario (LIFO - Last In First Out), maybe Campana, 1 of Rusin/Raley maybe? I'd like to trade Marmol, but i like the idea of rolling into the season with a decent if not good bullpen (certainly better than last season's squad).

  • In reply to Furiousjeff:


    CF and RH 3B/UT guy are other needs. I don't know to what extent they'll try and fill those.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, a bit off subject, but what do you think about an article that describes how an average world series team looks? For example do most world series teams have 1-2 dominant pitchers, or maybe 3 above average pitchers? Is there usually a dominant bat in the lineup that tends to make other players in the lineup better? A strong 7,8,9 back end of the bullpen? One or two high run scorers? Great defense? Perhaps there is a higher average WAR for the starting lineup?

    I think that type of article could help put into perspective the end goal, and how the Cubs might look when we realistically are competing for championships.

    Love the site, keep up the good work!

  • Lets Examine this Roster....

    Need to be put on the roster ...Jackson, Villanueva, Shierholtz......

    Starting Pitchers (12)


    Relief Pitchers (9)


    Hitters (19)


    So three has to go.....Keep the stars, Rule 5 guy, prospects and those you signed....which comes down to DFA's or a trade on the others......

    Rosario, Raley, room for them now.....Campana, Szczur might be on the bubble for a trade.....Clevenger is extra baggage at this point.....

    Theo can develop a trade with our younger guys for non 40 man prospects......Wood could be major trade bait in a larger deal.....but I like to hold him until what are TJ pitchers fare during spring training just for insurance.......

    But if the Cubs sign Liriano, then we can trade Wood, Szczur, Vitters, Concepcion, Jackson to the Marlins for Stanton.........unless Marlins have a better offer............or maybe a Marmol trade is in the works?....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Why would the Marlins give us Stanton for a package full of failures? That is nonsense.

    Vitters and Jackson are already busts. Yeah, there's rumors he "fixed his swing" but he was striking out 40% of the time in the MINORS and 50% in the MLB. Its going to take a miracle to make him a viable player. 40% in the PCL is inexcusable.

    Szczur has a chance but he's taken so long to develop at every level, I'd be surprised if GMs consider him a prospect.
    Even if he can still help the team in the future, he's not credible trade material.

    Concepción has been a wreck.
    Wood isn't good enough to be serious trade bait.

    You listed our most disappointing Minot leaguers and one back of the rotation pitcher... For the most promising young power hitter in the game.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Of course it is's from CubsTalk!

  • So... happy!

  • Added a countdown until pitchers and catchers report on the right hand rail.

    I'm getting excited.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Will you also have a countdown clock of when Garza, Baker and Jackson get traded in July?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Shouldn't you be putting up yet another roster for those of us who can't keep track of every single move the Cubs make or suggesting preposterous trades for Mike Stanton? I mean let's be honest, if the Marlins would take a complete bag of hammers to give up Stanton why would we have needed to sign Jackson and Villanueva to get that done?

  • In reply to Jive Wired:

    Now is that anyway to talk about his genius ideas.

  • fb_avatar

    I agree with the posts above that say we need to stop all the "trade everyone" talk. No way do they trade Shark or Jackson. I think Garza has the best upside of anyone they have except Shark, and at his age, why is everyone so anxious to get rid of him? At best you're taking a huge gamble with prospects in return. I think John did a write-up before that showed history is not kind to teams that trade proven SP for prospects.
    Also wondering if the team didn't make some promises to Feldman, Baker, and Villanueva about being starters. All three were said to be looking for the chance to start. Wood is the only lefty so it's hard to see him being traded.
    There are definitely more deals in the works before we start trying to fill out the 40 man roster.
    In any case, I'm thrilled with these deals! Hoyer/Epstein are really making smart moves without changing their long-term plan!

  • Latest Vegas odds ....100-1 for the Cubs to win the World Series....

    Blue Jays are favorite to win in 2013.

  • Mid-rotation workhorse with upside. You just can't help but get enamored with the fastball and slider. If Bosio can make either his curve or change a plus pitch, the guy can be a legitimate #2.

    Of course, maybe some of the love I have for him comes from having gone to eat somewhere and the last inning of his no-hitter in which he threw around 197 pitches is part of it.

  • Just looking into the future....not all thee players will be with us the full year....some might be gone in a matter of days....or by next July...some will be call ups for DL pitchers...or Sept call ups...

    Projected Wins for our pitchers....

    Baker...........7 (June start after DL)
    Garza...........8 ....(July trade in consideration)
    Vizcano...........5..(July call up after rehab)

    Total Win Projection..........92

    Injuries, trades and other issues can come of these guys can have a career year...another one can slump.......maybe we can catch fire with two or three surprises........if I am off by 8 wins, still an improvement....a .500 team or better now.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    You know the offense is still atrocious right?

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Giants, 2012 W.S. champs, had the least homeruns in MLB.....but they still won a title with that atrocious stat.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but there is no way the Cubs win 92 games next year unless hell freezes over.

    The pitching staff is going to be much improved, and yes, the Giants, A's, O's, and Pirates all were contenders last year with weak offenses and the first 3 made the playoffs.

    But the Cubs pitching is not as good as the Giants (or A's). Our offense is going to likely be equally inept. The Giants and A's play in pitchers' parks. And last but not least, their defenses were much better than ours figures to be.

    I'm not saying we can't make a huge improvement and if we get a lot of breaks we might be surprise contenders if our division is weak and our rivals suffer some major injuries. But it's more likely that we play well most of the first half and lose a lot of games because Cincy/Mil/Stl have far better offenses (and some legitimate ace SP's). Those teams also have better bullpens.

    And I think that for us to make the playoffs we would likely have to win the division outright. The NL East is loaded and the NL West has both the Giants and Dodgers. I think there will be far too many teams with more wins than the Cubs in the other two divisions for us to have any shot at a wildcard spot, even if everything somehow came together.

    Our rotation is loaded with depth, not a lot of quality. Garza is a number 2 type right now. We have no ace. The rest of the staff are number 3's/4's/5's. Shark might grow into a legitimate 2 or perhaps 1, Jackson can pitch like a 2 on many nights but he's more of a 3 because he's just not consistent. But they all need to be more consistent then they have for their careers for us to come anywhere near winning 90 games. (and Cincy, Milwaukee, and Stl would have to all get The Plague).

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I based my numbers of wins from past years....Cubs will have more than 12 pitchers on this roster this year.....Garza, Shark and EJax will be the top 3 pitchers.....if this Cubs team play fundamental baseball, and the pitching comes around, no doubt this team can sneak up and surprise a few teams......of course it can all go south for us.....but right now, the Cubs have improved......we lost Demspter, Maholm and Garza for half the season last year.....we gained Jackson, and few others who are better improvement than Coleman, Rusin, Berken and others.....I do believe we picked up 20 wins with these new pitchers......maybe 25 wins......and if one or two pitchers got hot, 90 wins is not out of the question.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Yes. Yes 90 wins is COMPLETELY out of the question.

    Being the worst offense in the league, however, is not out of the question.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    How many total wins do you think Jackson, Baker, Feldman, & Villanueva combine can bring to the Cubs in 2013?

    Berken, Volstad, Lopez, Wells, Rusin, Germano, Coleman & Raley gave us a total of 9 wins in 2012.

    I have no doubt one of new pitchers will have more than 9 wins next season......and the others will double that total.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    There is so so so so SO much wrong with judging a rotation based on wins.

    "Wins" is one of the most problematic statistical categories of any sport.

    Pitchers can have an amazing game and not get the "W" if there's no run support.

    Conversely, a terrible pitcher can be given the Win if the offense is raking.

    The Astros were one of the worst teams in recent memory last year. Their two starters who started the most games had 18 combined wins, but only a combined WAR of 3.0

    As I've pointed out, we have one of the worst offenses in the league.
    If we manage to move Soriano, there's every reason to believe we'll finish the season with the fewest runs in the MLB.

    I don't care who your rotation is, to win a baseball game the goal is to score more runs than your opponent. If you don't score runs, you won't win games.

    Its completely possible for Ejax, Villanueva, Baker, and Feldman to have fantastic stats and just a few wins.

    Without run support, they'll just be losing very low scoring games..... But still losing.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Sneaking up on teams and winning 92 games....will happen right after the Yankees trade for Castro.

  • Yanks have sale......28 other teams asked about Castro also.....typical in baseball trade go back home to get your shine box.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Yeah, but you wanted to be reporter and tell everyone it was actually being discussed more than just a call.

    The only movie reference I know that quote to be from is in didn't work out to well for the guy saying it....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Giants were 5th in BA, 8th in OBP, and 12th in RBIs (despite Cabrera's suspension)

    Posey was the best hitter in the NL.

    They scored more than 100 more runs than us.

    So let's stop acting like our offense is even remotely comparable to theirs.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    As a cubs fan, I'm willing to take my chances with pitching and beer. Just so neither give out in july or august.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    92 I know nobody is writing that anywhere else.

  • I believe we have a disgruntle Sox fan here.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    No, just someone with common sense...something you know nothing about.

  • Don't you have some ornaments to hang on a tree that you raise your leg to?

  • Would going after Brett Myers be too much?

  • In reply to SFToby:

    He would be a nice filler in both starting and set up roles......but I doubt if Theo goes after him........remember, we still have Vizcano, Cabrera & others that are in the wings waiting.

    Next major move will be for an outfielder.

  • I see that Alberto Cabrera has had a nice first start in the DWL. Four hitless innings, 10 Ks and 6 BBs. Sounds like he was effectively wild.

  • If the pitchers stay the same(big if), a possible spring training scenario might be Garza, Baker, Samardzija, and Jackson being a lock. But Baker probably won't be ready out of spring training so Villanueva, Wood, and Feldman will slug it out for the final two spots. Whoever does better out of those two will keep the fifth spot when Baker comes back in late April/early May.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    Baker out until June.....Vizcano comes back around July....Wood be there in April to have a lefty in the rotation......Feldman comes in when we need a fifth starter.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I'd be surprised if Baker's out until June. Time will tell though. Nice to have some contingencies to fall back on if he is.

    I think Feldman does have an advantage for the 5th spot. Half his value is as a flippable asset but that means they gotta get him some starts. Different from Baker who I think they do have more interest in extending.

  • I was pretty lukewarm about Jackson at first, but I'm coming around. At first it seemed a little too nowacrat for my taste. I was concerned that Jackson would be taking innings that might have otherwise gone to a developing prospect. And considering we have a number of prospects with No. 3 potential, it seemed like we'd be crowding the rotation with 3s, when what we really needed were 1s and 2s.

    The more I think about it, though, it's important to be more competitive this year, not just for the fans but for the morale of players like Castro, Rizzo and Samardzija. Jackson is a big step in that direction, a move that strengthens both the rotation and the pen, since his addition will push another potential starter back to the late innings. In the worst-case scenario, where the Cubs are out of the playoff hunt by June, then at least we have flexibility to trade some of the vets as a way to replenish the farm. Having Jackson over multiple years, with no NTC, means that if / when our No. 3 starter prospects are ready, we can send Jackson packing and have $$ for to address a more pressing need.

    Looking at it from every angle, it's clear that we're gaining a lot without too big of a risk. And in this free agent market, that's all you can ask for.

Leave a comment