Advertisement:

Cubs to sign Anibal Sanchez??!!

Cubs to sign Anibal Sanchez??!!

Wow. Wow. Wow!!!

I was just catching up and corresponding with some friends (including Tom and Fels) and came to the blog to find out that Bob Nightengale tweeted that the Cubs will sign Anibal Sanchez to a 5 year/$75M contract.  But I'm going to pause for a second because Nightengale has burned me before.

Ken Rosenthal was the first to say that the Cub were getting close.

The ever reliable David Kaplan says hold on....deal not done yet, Cubs are down the road and tying to finalize the deal, but they do have a fallback option.

So, just in case this really does go through, here are my thoughts...

I'm a huge fan of Sanchez, as you probably know from previous posts.  At the beginning of last season i thought he was the biggest potential bargain among SPs on the FA market.

That changed through the course of the year as Sanchez made a name for himself with his impressive performance down the stretch and in the playoffs.  I didn't think the Cubs would pursue him because he no longer fit under that bargain category.  That pat was true.  At 5 years/$75M, he is not really a bargain.  That's pretty much what he's worth.

But that's not to say it's not a good signing and I'm thrilled that he's a Cub.

Sanchez, 28, fits the profile in that he's in his peak years and has the kind of numbers that indicate good future performance.  He throws strikes (2.21 walk/9IP) , misses bats (7.68 Ks/9 IP, and keeps the ball in the park. He also had a solid 46.4% GB rate last season.  Those qualities lead to consistently good FIPs.  In fact, he ranks 18th in baseball over the past 3 years in that category.  He's 16th in WAR in that same time frame.

On the mound, Sanchez is a change-up specialist with enough velocity on his 2 seam fastball (91-94 mph) to make a big velocity differential (13-14 mph) and keep hitters consistently off balance.   He also has a 3rd plus pitch, a hard, mid 80s slider.

His results haven't been as great as his peripherals in part because of the teams he has played with.  Detroit and Miami aren't exactly known for their IF defense, but the Cubs have average to above average defenders across the board.  Sanchez should benefit greatly with Stewart/Valbuena, Castro, Barney, and Rizzo behind him.

As of now, the Cub rotation looks pretty good.  The Cubs have 6 solid starters once Scott Baker is ready.  The top 4 is potentially one of the best we've seen in Chicago in years.

  • Anibal Sanchez
  • Matt Garza
  • Jeff Samardzija
  • Scott Baker
  • Scott Feldman
  • Travis Wood

This could lead to other moves, such as the trading of Matt Garza, but for now, I'm going to kick back and enjoy this.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    28 YO Starter for 15 per year. Can't complain. If they keep Garza, a heavily right handed rotation, but 1-5 of Sanchez, Garza, Shark, Feldman, Baker/Wood works for me

  • Travis Wood still has an option year left. Can't help but feel like he might be the odd man out once Baker's healthy.

    It might be early on, but, if Stewart's able to perform the way scouts have thought and hoped he could for a while now, we could be looking at a team pushing for that second wild card. Sanchez - Garza- Samardzija - Baker - Feldman, Camp, Russell, Fujikawa and Marmol in the back end. DeJesus - Barney - Castro - Rizzo - Soriano - Stewart - Castillo - Scheirholtz every day?

    A lot of question marks, but a lot of potential.

  • In reply to Jim Weihofen:

    Could use an at bat, but the solid pitching staff could put them in the 75-80 win category for sure.

  • John, you were at your computer when this happened, is your streak broken?

    I like the deal, have to think Garza will be gone.

  • Six solid starters with Vizcaino ready to go by summer time. A #2 overall pick. Good quality depth in the low Minors.

    I like the direction things are going.

  • Its Nightengale so I don't know.....

    Has anyone else confirmed the signing?

  • In reply to WillieG1:

    Exactly!

  • fb_avatar

    This team is determined to never win a world series.

  • Looks like Nightengale jumped the gun. Heyman and Rosenthal saying "slow your roll." They're in talks, long night.

  • Jedstein ain't foolin, eh?

  • fb_avatar

    I like the move, hopefully he didn't get a "Hendry" (no trade clause)

  • fb_avatar

    I certainly hope Nightingale jumped the gun. This team is still a season, maybe two, from being fit for win-now mode.

    And 5 years for a 29y/o pitcher that is not a difference maker doesn't fit the current rebuilding plan at all.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    It wouldn't be unlike Nightengale to jump the gun to try and break a story first.

  • Is everyone ready for another letdown? A cubbie occurrence is about to happen when Sanchez resigns with the tigers

  • fb_avatar

    With another right hander in the rotation I get the feeling more and more that Sean Manaea is probably our #1 target for the upcoming draft.....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    We don't control that.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    That's why he's only a "target" imo....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    I'm just saying that it wouldn't make sense to sign righties banking on a lefty. Sorry.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    Again, no one said they were banking on it. It was only the opinion of me alone and the word "target" was used on purpose. I did not say they were locked into any one guy.

    Next.....

  • Hoping this will go through! We have been let down on other deals! This would be awesome! Get it done! FO is trying that's the best part! When our time comes it's going to be our dreams come through!

  • fb_avatar

    No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No,No. I do not like this what so ever. Wait unless this contract is team friendly, ( Does not include a no trade clause) and we might be able to flip him. I happen to think that would be the only way i would even like this.

  • I like this. Take the Tiger's pitcher and make them more desperate for Garza at the deadline ;)

  • In reply to gocubsgo:

    My thought, exactly!

  • fb_avatar

    I don't understand how people can be happy about this.

    We had the third fewest runs scored last year, and have added zero offense.

    We had only 30 more runs than Houston and were almost 200 runs (!) behind the #1 team.
    And we're actively shopping our biggest run-producer.

    Winning with ANY rotation would be a fantasy. And Sanchez is no ace.

    This would jusr be a bad team with as another bad contract.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    At a certain point you have to start building up a bit and if the Cubs see Sanchez as their future #2, then it's alright to sign him now. He doesn't have that much wear on his arm and will be ready to go in 2 years or so when the Cubs are ready to compete. The price of pitching is going up and the Cubs have very little in the system. The offense will come together in time, and the system will be able to provide a lot of the production they need (Baez, Soler, Almora, etc.).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to gocubsgo:

    Those three will not all be on the roster until at least 2015. 2016 is more realistic and 2017 is a possibility.

    That's IF they make it to the big leagues.

    Remember the excitement over Cutters and Jackson? Now we've nearly given up in them.

    Sanchez would be at the end of his contract by the time the offense (hopefully) catches up.

    I agree that , at some point you have to build a bit, but this guy at this time makes no sense.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    As long as there is not a no trade clause, how could you not like this? If you progress quickly, you have another legit #2 type starter, in his peak years in your rotation. Yet you still maintain your flexibility if you want to flip him. He would be worth a kings ransom if you go that route. The $$ isn't bad and there would be 4 more years of cost control for the team he was moved to. How does this stunt our build or hurt the Cubs organization in any way?

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Vitters and Jackson were never top 20 prospects in all of baseball. Baez will be up by 2014 (He's already been at high A). They will have $$$ to spend as well. The offense will be very good by 2015.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    Yes prospects do not always work out. But it is still important to build with their future contributions in mind. Jackson may well still pan out too. The key is to not through the baby out with the bath water. Sanchez comes at a reasonable price if they can get him for 5/$75... He is durable and ideal for wrigley with his propensity to cause ground ball contact. Is Sanchez Roy Halladay? No, but he is a solid MLB starter and considering we traded away two of the four we entered last season with, it is imperative that we backfill the rotation. Yes we are a couple years from seeing contributions from Baez, Almora, Soler and company; however, we must always play to win now as long as it doesn't compromise the future. I would say this deal does just that, we lost zero prospects (unlike the Royals) and now have a #3 maybe #2 starter for the next five years. I would be willing to bet there will be a no trade clause to certain clubs. A no trade clause in this case makes sense because if Sanchez outperforms his contract we would not want to trade a 29 or 30 year old that is tied up for the duration of his prime years (and not a year more) on a team friendly deal.

    There is a very high floor on this contract, considering the relatively low cost compared to other #2's and 3's around the league (especially those going into their prime years).

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    It's a 5 year deal. Do you not expect the Cubs to contend in the next 5 years? This is not a bloated contract, $15 mil a year is completely reasonable for a guy who averaged 4 WAR the past two seasons. At $5.5 mil per WAR, he's a bargain if he keeps that up. He's also in his prime, he'll still be solid at the end of the contract when we're in contention. A good #3 with the capability to be a #2, for a reasonable price? Sign me up for a few more helpings. It's nice to actually envision the fleeting thought that the Cubs may flirt with the second wild card, and possibly have meaningful games in September. Not likely, but with a strong staff it's a possibility.

  • Don't get too excited yet. According to multiple reports the deal is not done yet. The Tigers are trying to claw their way back into this. Also Kaplan says there is a fall back pitcher if the Cubs don't sign Sanchez.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Lirano?

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Kaplan didn't say who's agent he talked to.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JeffK:

    Tigers claw their way back in...

    Nice work, JeffK!

  • I know we're supposed to be talking baseball here, but this could be incredible. Kevin Love of the Minnesota T-wolves could be coming to the Bulls.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Dwight Howard next year also!........

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Trade?

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Yes there is talk of a Kevin Love to Chicago trade.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    It could be all speculation at the moment since Love has made it known that he is not happy with what the T-wolves are doing with there roster.

    There had been some talk of a Booser - Love swap a while ago.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Ahhh...that could get me interested in the Bulls again. More so when Rose and Love are on the court together.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Where did u see this?

  • fb_avatar

    This is Nightingale we're talking about. So don't get your hopes up to high. As for Sanchez not being a difference maker and his potential signing not being part of plan. Sanchez's age, WAR, FIP and XFIP suggests otherwise.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    He's a solid #2, in my opinion.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    He's definitely solid.

    By "difference-maker" I mean a guy that turns around a team around by his arrival.

    Sanchez is very very solid. But 13 is his career max for wins.

    He's not turning around a triple digit loss team. We've added no offense and were just bottom 5 of the league in every offensive category.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Agreed, he won't turn a team around but those guys are few and far between. In fact, hard to say there was anyone like that in this year's free agency -- at least going forward.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I don't think there is a player in the league that would suddenly make the Cubs contenders all by himself. That's why we build one piece at a time. In that sense, each player who is more talented/a better producer is a difference maker... it's just the degree to which they improve the team that is in question. In this case, Sanchez would be better than most other pieces we could roll out there, he is young and can be flipped if need be, and he can contribute to the here and now to make the team more watchable and interesting to follow. Certainly beats watching Coleman try to make it through 5 innings without giving up 8 runs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed! He's definitely part of the plan at $15m per.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I like to think of him more as a "Spectacular #3". With Shark & Garza as 2A & 2B. Feldman & Baker rounding a solid rotation. Wood becomes the swing man once Baker is healthy IMO. Now we just need that 1A STUD ACE... Can we deal for David Price next?

  • I am believing more and more that Garza is staying.......

    Theo is moving quickly on all fronts with this team..

  • Hard to imagine Sanchez coming here........if he does.......Garza, Samardzija, plus the others....lots of "arms" ........I do believe we have the hitting.........

    just imagine what 2013 could be like..........

    Oh boy, I need to put down the Cubs Kool Aid.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    26th in BA
    27th in Slugging
    28th in OBP
    29th in runs

    We've not added any hitters

    What makes you think we have the hitting?

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Good pitching can change a team around.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Its not like the offense was "OK."

    We were 30 runs ahead of the Astros who were beyond embarrassing. And if we manage to trade Soriano, chalk us up for worst offense in the league.

    Soriano had a 38.5 RAR last year. So I'm not just being pessimistic. Its entirely possible.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Yea you do, the Cubs hitting is atrocious but hey we will be in a lot of games w this rotation and potentially solid bullpen.

    A competitive team is all we can ask for from this Owner/Mgmt group, and that's what they look to be fielding for us.

  • Cubs' front office needs to get these leaks under control. This could be strike 3.

  • In reply to CubsML:

    The rotation of starters we didn't get would be almost as strong as our current rotation 1) Sanchez 2) Haren 3) Delgado

  • In reply to CubsML:

    dont think this one is from Cubs end.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    1) This has happened twice before with this team. I can't say I've it happen with other teams. Suggests a pattern. 2) I have no idea why an agent would leak a story about a done deal with a team, then have the player sign with another team. That seems to me a pretty good way to piss off a front office.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Either way, the front office needs to muzzle what's coming from the agents and their players. 3 incidents like this strikes me as a pretty big black eye.

  • In reply to CubsML:

    Are you sure the leaks are from the Cubs' front office? I take Jed/Theo as guys who would prefer to work well below the radar screen and if the leaks were coming directly from the Cubs' FO the people won't be still around. However, they don't have any control over their players or their agents saying something.

    Ever thought that the Sanchez' agent might have leaked it in an attempt to drive up the price.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    100% from agents side. If so look for Theo not have this agent on favorite list going forward. Not good to piss off ownerships in NY, CHI or LA, biggest markets in the country .

  • A few things make this a good deal in my opinion:
    1) A typical Win Above Replacement Level has been valued around $5 million, right? With the uptick in revenue and the emphasis in money being placed in the majors rather than on the amateur side under the new CBA, this should only go up. Sanchez has averaged around a 3 WAR the last few years, meaning he's being signed right at his value now, with the potential for surplus value in the future, especially since he's only 28.
    2) The crop of free agent pitchers next year isn't very good. Phil Hughes is the only guy under 30. Teams are being forced to spend their resources more on their major league teams under the CBA, which has resulted in more of the top notch players being locked into big extensions and never hitting free agency. Sanchez might be one of the better free agent pitchers to make it to free agency in the near future.
    3) If it doesn't include a No Trade Clause, then he can be flipped for prospects later down the road. The point I've already beaten into the ground is that the new CBA doesn't allow unlimited spending on the amateur side anymore. Because of that, big market teams can only take advantage of their resources in free agency.

  • This stinks of agent leaking to get an increased offer. Cubs might be getting used like a lady in the red light district .

  • fb_avatar

    If (and it sounds like its still a big IF) this goes through as reported - I definitely like the deal. He may not be an ace, but I see him as a solid mid to possibly front rotation guy just entering his prime. That makes him useful now and defintely a viable piece of what we all hope will be a competitive team by 2014 or 2015. As much as I love looking at our growing group of legit prospects and projecting them all to fulfill their potential, I also know that many won't make it due to injuries or just failing to develop. So, when there is an opportunity to add a quality arm that can help today and should also be a key part of the rotation a few years from now it makes complete sense. Fingers crossed on this one.

  • Sanchez agent, Mato, went back to the Tigers to get an extra year and match Cubs offer.

    If Mato represents any other Cub, they are cooked if Sanchez signs with the Tigers.

    If Sanchez does sign with us, does this cost us our draft pick?...or is it protected?

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Mato will be on Theo's naughty list for sure unless the Cubs knew the Tigers had the chance to match, if Mato used the Cubs and Nightingale to extract an extra year then He cost himself alot of money down the line by alienating a big market club that will have money to spend going forward.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Reporters are saying Cubs had no idea Sanchez would go back to detroit and werent told anything,they thought it was a done deal.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Cubs did nothing wrong in this negotiation , as far as I can gather , all agent using Nightingale

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    yep. nothing wrong on their part, the agent, nightengale and Sachez are the culprits here. Again, cubs made a fair offer and thought it was a done deal.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I hope Theo and Jed have the stones to publically tell the whole world they wont have any future business dealings with this agent or any of his clients .

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Me too.

    If they basically had a "hand shake deal" w no mention of going back to Tigers to see if they would match/beat contract then they would be fools not to at least say something otherwise other agents/players/teams will continue to take advantage of them.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    It does not cost a draft pick. Since he was traded halfway through the season, he wasn't eligible for a QA.

  • fb_avatar

    Hopefully the Tigers don't match this offer or the Cubs brass is going to look silly no matter who leaked it.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    How does the Cubs brass look silly , they never announced the signing , Nightingale did and the agent went back to the Tigers, Obvious agent using the weakest link in the journalist circle knowing He jumps the gun regularly to get extra year and money from another team . Cubs made a good offer for a good player, How does that make Theo/Jed look bad?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Because it seems to only happen to them. I def could be wrong but I can't remember any other team thinking they signed/traded for a player and it not happen.

    If it's truly and only the agents fault(like you believe), I am sure we will hear about it.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Jim...There was no official word from the Cubs or the Angels that a trade had closed. Marmol spouted off that he was asked if he would go to the Angels. Also, you can't fault Jed/Theo for balking on Haren who has bone-on-bone wear in his hip.

    And you can't fault them either with the Dempster issue. That came from the Atlanta side of things.

    So saying the Cubs FO looks silly is being disingenuous.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JeffK:

    We still don't know 100% what happened w the Dempster situation except Dempster taking his sweet time to approve, because Jedstein didn't take him out to dinner and hold his hand while they told him.

    I just don't get how they didn't look at Haren's medicals before they decided to go forward w the trade. I may be naive, but as a businessman, that would be the first thing I did.

    Mysteriously Haren's bone wear on his hip or whatever problems he had is mysteriously healed or at least good enough for the Nats to sign him to a decent sized contract.

    Yea, no agenda going on

    Although, I did like the use of disingenuous, very well done

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Well Detroit has matched the Cubs offer and now it is a waiting game, but Dan Pleasac says that he believe Sanchez will re-sign with Detroit now that things are equal.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    blackball the agent and pull any credentials granted by the team to Nightingale .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Bruce Levine says that Nightingale got played by the agent.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    If Levine is reporting this I hope Theo publically outs Mato for sure now, blackball him.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Where did you see that Detroit matched the Cubs offer? Plesac said the Tigers countered the Cubs offer. Doesn't mean they matched it.

  • In reply to DeuceBaseman:

    Elsewhere it says that the Tigers bumped their offer. Only two ways to bump the offer, years and/or money. For a player to stay with his current team I believe it is going to have to be both.

    Look the Rangers thought no other team was going to go past four years for Hamilton, but the Angels added a 5th year. In Hamilton's case he didn't go back to the Rangers to see if they'd match.

    The Sanchez situation his agent is using reporters and the Cubs to drive up Detroit's offer. The most recent update I've read is that negotiations are on going and no decision has been made -- but it is supposed to be tonight.

    Not sure how much the Cubs would negotiate with an agent that has played them.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JeffK:

    Not just played, but owned them if he gets his client Anibal Sanchez his 5 yr 75 million from the destination he really wanted to go.

    God I hope the Tigers don't give in and make this agent look shrewd, dirty shrewd but he got his player what he wanted.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    It would never happen but it would be awesome if Detriot didn't match the Cubs offer and when the agent comes back to the Cubs they say they've decided to go a different route.
    I think once the Cubs start to compete on a regular basis they will go the route of Arte Moreno and start making their offers take it or leave it. I just hope they don't start making some of the crazy deals the Angels have!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Zippy2212:

    That would teach all the agents out there if the Tigers didn't

  • fb_avatar

    I can't help but feel like we just got done over by Sanchez and his Agent in an attempt to squeeze an extra year out of the Tigers and nothing else. I understand negotiations are rough but this is just bad business. Cubs thought they had a done deal(which they should have after outbidding everyone else) only for Sanchez to turn around and go WAIT! let's give detroit one more chance to up the offer.

    Clearly it's about money and not who wanted your services the most. We outbid everyone including the Tigers, we showed you the most commitment. But hey, that's the business game and the cubs just got played. Hope we still sign him.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    thats what i think is going on and if so Mato cost himself alot of money, Theo should boycott this guy like the Sox do Boras , Send out a statement to agents .

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Absolutely. This kind of nonsense can't continue. You try to F a small market team, you may get away w it. You mess w the big boys w the big media, time to get black balled !

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Agree Marcel, I'm guessing here that Theo et al, have closed the books on this agent & this 'deal' & will walk away.

  • May be best for us if we lose out on Sanchez. Five years too long on a pitcher. Sign Jackson or Marcum for three.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Craig:

    Rather have Jackson than Marcum. At least has some upside left.

  • If, and sadly a big IF, the Cubs land Anibal, then does that increase what looked like a long shot of signing Bourn. Bourn is definitely running out of options. On a one year deal, he has to be attractive, as a candidate to flip. Bourn makes at least a little sense on a one year deal.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KSCubsFan:

    Not when it costs us a very high draft pick.

    If there's so little interest, then there's no guarantee we can flip him at all. At least not for equal or greater value to said draft pick.

  • Good point, didn't immediately consider that. That has to be part of what makes Anibal so attractive. He's rare in that he's a young top tier FA, who want cost a pick, especially the #2 pick.

  • Well, looks like we'll find out tonight, but given recent history, not feeling optimistic this goes Cubs way. Keeping an eye on it.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    So Jon , what repurcussions could You see happening out of this ordeal? Could the Cubs blackball this agent publically like the Sox have Boras?

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    sorry i keep spelling your name like my Sons lol . Jon lol .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    No, i think there's too much too lose but no doubt the Cubs will be wary. That agent will certainly not be asking the Cubs for any favors the way we know Boras does.

  • Agree, the way this was handled by the agent and Sanchez with Nightingale's help the cubs should close the book on this and walk away from the deal. Even if they were to get him, and I doubt they will, it will leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. And I hope te cubs decide to forego any deal wit this agent and leave Nightingale on the outside looking in on the cubs.

  • every supply and demand business has an approved vendor list , i make sure this guy knows he isnt on that list anymore for the Cubs and leak that to Nightingale lol.

  • I really hope this goes through. Weakness in system is starting pitching, so if they are going to spend then this is the area. He wouldn't be blocking anyone and would be a good fit. Quit talking about flipping. That would be years away.

  • fb_avatar

    Could it be possible that maybe their are some upper tier FA feel whats going to happen for the Cubs is the place to be.

  • fb_avatar

    MLB better give the Cubs some compensation for this if the agent/reporter really tricked/lied/F'd Jedstein like some believe !

  • Just so people know, the Cubs #2 overall pick is protected. It won't happen with Sanchez, but if they did sign a big FA, they would lose their 2nd round pick

  • In reply to Quedub:

    They would only use their 2nd round pick if that 'big' free agent was with their club the whole year. But, if that 'big' FA was a trade deadline acquisition there is no compensation.

  • In reply to JeffK:

    Yep. That's why they wouldn't lose their 2nd round pick if they sign Sanchez. One more reason why I'm excited about this deal possibly going through.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Yes. The guess here is that they could recoup that with trading Garza.

  • Thanks John. I'm a big fan of the Cubs Den. I scour MLB trade rumors for MLB updates, but I can't stand reading the user feedback on that site. I really enjoy viewing the cubs den throughout the day. Very knowlegable people with a good head on their shoulders. I must say... I'm really excited about the opportunity that Theo/Jed created. My preference is it land Sanchez later tonight. However, I really think they're hedging their bet. Even if Sanchez signs with the Tigers... we're in a pretty good position to land Porcello for some kind of package that includes Marmol.

  • In reply to jkcutback:

    Thanks jkcutback. Appreciate those kind words!

    I think the Cubs are prepared to make a move in case this doesn't go through.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I hope your right John.

    I do not want all the headlines tomorrow to be about us not getting anibal !

  • David Kaplan ‏@thekapman
    Trying to text/work the phones while hosting 3 hr radio show. Hearing Cubs are in play on P Mike Adams (Rangers) Carlos Villanueva (Tor)

    Villanueva is going to seem like quite the letdown if he really is the backup option. I could live with E. Jackson, but CV would seem like quite a drop off.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to North Side Irish:

    I agree. At least Edwin Jackson can be just flat out nasty when he's on.

    The reason I really liked the Sanchez move is that it shows they are really really serious about building for the future right now. Adding Sanchez to the couple of core guys was the right thing to do this offseason. You can't build it all in 1 offseason, got to piece a couple together.

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    Villanueva would be great....Adams is a tough one on the mound.....no let down here if Sanchez signs with the Tigers.....it will be Sanchez's agent who will be "Blacklisted" by the Cubs...

    And we will go after Appel anyway.

  • Long time everyday reader. First question or comment...John, if this doesn't happen, do you think that Jackson is the back up option?.... and this is by far the best place for cub information anywhere. Thank you John for all you do.

  • Regardless of how this plays out, it does reflect a weakness in this FO's negotiation and trading process and HOW IT IS BEING REPORTED by the press.

    Very unsettling to this fan.

  • fb_avatar

    It sounds like Sanchez's agent, Gene Mato, has played the Cubs to get an extra year out of Detroit, but if that turns out to be the case, that probably isn't all bad. Anytime one door closes another door usually opens, and if Sanchez does end up going back to Detroit, it's very possible that Rick Porcello suddenly becomes available.

    I saw where the the Cubs are supposed to have a back up plan in case Sanchez falls through. I hope it's Edwin Jackson.

  • John, are you able to elaborate on the Lim tweet? Is a deal still likely?

  • In reply to CubsML:

    Just that a deal isnt done and things not going as smoothly. I hope it still goes through but it's more up in the air than we were led to believe.

  • Another long time reader. First question, and slight chage of subject. Keep reading talk of going after David Price next year. Won't that cost us all of our new minor league talent? Any idea what he would cost in a trade?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cbbiefun2014:

    Price will certainly command a package of top prospects and possibly cost-controlled veterans.

    I don't think the Cubs can make that happen. As good as our farm is becoming, I can't see Theo sacrificing most of what he's built. It would probably take Baez, Solver, Almora + more.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but IMO, Price is the best combination of pure stuff and command &control in the league for some time.

    I seriously hope that the Rays hold a razor-thin lead in the AL east going into the next trade deadline.

    If he reaches free agency, I would not object to the cubs giving him the biggest contract in MLB history.

    His face is next to "difference-maker" in the dictionary.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    going to have to wait until the 2014 trade deadline to try and pry him or at least 2013 offseason at minimum.

    1 yr of Price will cost a whole lot, but def not cost our top 3 prospects let alone + more

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    A 31 yr old James Shields just got 3 of the top 4 Royals prospects, including the #1 position prospect in all of baseball.

    The only top prospect the Royals kept hasn't got past low-A, so that would've been a risk.

    The Rays are already known for shrewd, one-sided trades, and David Price is arguably the best pitcher in the league.

    Even if those 3 Cub prospects develop VERY well, it may not be enough.

    You are absolutely right about the contract though. I thought he was at a different place in his current contract. He'll definitely never see free agency.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    No, the only top-4 Royals prospect the Rays got was Myers.
    Don't count on Montgomery and the 3B throw-in being major leaguers. They still have depth in their minor league system, with Bubba Starling and lots of power pitchers.
    That's why organizational depth is crucial. The Royals sold a crop to get two impact pitchers, but they didn't sell the farm.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    I'm not counting the 2b guy at all.

    And I'm not even talking about my opinion. I don't really consider myself an armchair scout. I have opinions on players, sure, but outside if the cubs I don't really rank organizations.

    Mlb.com has Myers, Odirizzi and Montgomery in the Royals top 4. Keith Law has them in the top 5. I glanced at other lists too that were very similar.

    The Royals clearly sent away all if their developed talent. Um not making it up.

    They may have depth remaining in A ball, but that's always a gamble.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Probably right. Every year there's a team that disappoints everyone though. If the Rays somehow are way out of it at this deadline, someone could sneak in there and ambush the league. I'd love to see the Cubs as one of those teams that overachieves every year. We offer up Baez/Vogelbach/Cabrera/Wood/Candelario (we need a couple of those guys to be having big years for this to happen) some crazy 5 or 6 player package and the Rays say, "OK". I'm sure he'd sign a 7/175 extension when offered.

  • In reply to cbbiefun2014:

    Hey cbbiefun2014,

    Guessing it'd start with Baez and probably a pitching prospect. It's going to depend on where Cubs are as far as MLB team and depth in organization. If Cubs feel they are in position to make deal, I think they'd at least consider bringing in that kind of impact talent.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    How does Price get them less than Shields?

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    That's a starting point. And it's too early to say what's more or less than Shields.

    And some think Myers may be a tad overrated, Montgomery a reliever, and Odorizzi a mid rotation...at best. Not saying that's my personal opinion, but not everybody is gushing about this deal for the Rays.

    If Baez progresses and hits the way he did last year at the upper levels, you don't think a SS with that kind of bat won't be more valuable than a LF'er?

    We'll see where things stand next year. As I've said a number of times. The deal only gets done if the Cubs are in position to do so at every level of the organization. Progress has to be made and it includes the MLB team and it's prospects.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I think Vogelbach may turn into that big piece for price.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Fair enough.

    I'm personally pretty impressed with Myers and it seems like a great fit for the Rays.

    Conversely, Baez, to this point hasn't shown his bat is at Myers level and the reviews I've read of his defense (while positive), seem ...cautiously optimistic. I don't think he can hang at SS but I think he'll be fine at 3B. His defense might be wanting but hopefully the bat will make up for it.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Baez a lot, it just seems like he gets a lot of eyes looking at him through rose colored glasses.

    But they're both still prospects at this point, and you may very well be way more on point than myself. Myers is no sure thing. And Baez may just keep improving.

    I certainly hope so.

  • fb_avatar

    Think about how good our 2013 "if we were a lucky franchise" rotation would loook

    Shark
    Garza
    Haren
    Anibal
    Randall Delgado

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    60% of your rotation is not here......

    Garza is on the trade table....

    Haren is with the Nationals
    Delgado is still with the Braves
    Anibal rather play with the Tigers

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    That's why he called it the if we were lucky rotation.

  • Reports out of Miami....Rangers looking to trade for Giancarlo Stanton....will send large group of prospects for Stanton..

  • Theo should call up Detroit and offer to walk away from Sanchez thus saving Detroit a year and some cash in exchange for a favorable Marmol for Porcello deal. This also would blow up in the agents face and give him what he deserves for trying to screw the Cubs over.

  • In reply to Matt:

    ^ like

  • Missed out on the fun in the comments section here! Trying to figure stuff out but it looks like we're in the dark until tomorrow.

  • The Cub fan in me won't be surprised if the Sanchez "signing" ends with the same results as the Delgado and Haren "trades".

  • fb_avatar

    Agreed Raymond, but at least we know that this front office is ready to pounce when the right guy comes along...I'm just pissed off by this a-hole of an agent...Nightengale is a chump of Phil Rogers porportions!!! Maybe we'll be surprised!!!

  • fb_avatar

    A big part of me agrees with an earlier post, that suggested we pull the offer and let Detroit know we did, just to screw this agent and sign Edwin Jackson... This is no way to conduct business, I feel bad for the front office,,they have no blame in any of these breaking stories that have killed one great deal for sure (Dempster,,,oh thanks again Ryan) and the Haren deal which never got completed (thanks Marmol for tweeting) and now Mr No Cred getting schooled by an agent, thanks Florence Nightengale!!!

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    I'm just tired of these "done deals" that don't get done. I do believe, though, that if Sanchez's agent takes him back to Detroit, the Cubs will sign a different FA pitcher, maybe Jackson, to a multi-year contract.

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    Agreed completely. That is exactly what I'd love to see happen. I'd love to see Sanchez and Mato lose a year, $15M and future business with the Cubs.

  • fb_avatar

    Looking objectively, it would seem very likely the Cubs didn't leak this, but I am getting sick of these premature leaks happening to us. At least we know for sure Theo thinks he can turn this team around relatively quickly, though. So that's a good thing to come out of this.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    KR reporting that Cubs have upped their offer by 2.5 million to 77.5...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chris Lattier:

    https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chris Lattier:

    Heyman says we're out. Given Twitter rumors of late, that's probably the best news in the last 2 months.

  • fb_avatar

    Forget the Cardinals as the cubs biggest rival.. It's social networking now lol..

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Colman Conneely:

    Amen

  • fb_avatar

    I can't imagine 2.5 mil extra over 5 years is going t make a difference. This looks like it is headed towards being a disappointment for the Cubs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Isaiah Madsen:

    Exactly, dropped the ball again. If you want the guy, pay him an extra million a year, w the saving this yr and last yr, the Cubs can more then afford it.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Sanchez's agent gave the Tigers the chance to beat the Cubs' offer without giving the same courtesy to the Cubs. Once the Tigers made that offer, the Cubs could do nothing about it.

  • fb_avatar

    https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/279589054423658496

    Cubs out of the race. Anibal to return to Tigers ... per Jon Heyman.

  • Looks like the Cubs pulled out of the bidding. Good for them! To hell with these agents!

  • Good for them. Rght thing to do. Forget any more dealing with this agent and let Nightingale know from now on he's on the eoutside looking in.

  • From the outside looking in, it appears that Sanchez, all along wanted to return to Detroit & used the Cubs for leverage in his contract with Detroit. Theo et al probably offered a larger 10 min offer, "take it or leave it" bid & when he didn't, they closed shop.

  • Take that money and sign Garza to an extension today. Let's reward somebody who's done right by us and stick it in the face of some chump who thinks of the Cubs as nothing more than a pawn in the game of negotiating chess.

  • fb_avatar

    Hate to be a downer guys but I'm glad this didnt happen a 5 yr deal 80 mil for a guy that's 48 and 51 I like the 3.75 ERA.. But idk go sign Edwin Jackson to a 2 or 3 yr deal.. And go extend Garza..

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Colman Conneely:

    I agree with this. I would have liked to have Sanchez, but five years is a lot. Now Detroit is stuck with Sanchez until he's 35. Maybe he's worth it all the way through, but that's a lot of risk imo.

  • Ken Rosenthal just said on Hot Stove that Anibal Sanchez is going back to the Tigers.

  • fb_avatar

    And Theo and co made it ALOT more expensive for Detroit their origins offer was 4 yrs 48 mil to 5 yrs 80 mil.. Dombrowski can't be happy about that..

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Colman Conneely:

    That's just business. Dombrowski could've backed out, but he chose not too.

  • YESSSSSSSSSS!!!! I just broke the story on Cubs Den. Woot! Woot! Nightengale swings and misses again.

  • Matt garza ‏@Gdeuceswild
    I'm not welcoming anyone, anymore to the cubs organization! #puzzled

    I thought Matt's tweet was hilarious....

  • fb_avatar

    Are we looking at this the wrong way? Allow me to be Devil's advocate for a moment. I don't know who Gene Mato's other clients are, but is it possible that the Cubs FO allowed themselves to be used in order to get future considerations from a client of Mato's they might want in the future, when they are ready to win?

    Anyways, it sounds like what actually happened is the Cubs had a certain number they weren't going to go over. 5 years for $80M is what is being reported, and the Cubs final offer was said to be 5 years for $77M.

    I think we all agree that the Cubs initial reported offer, 5 years for $75M, was about what Sanchez was worth. So I don't see any point in crying here. If Detroit wants to overpay, even if it is only slightly, let them. Can you imagine what kind of deal Sanchez might have gotten had Jim Hendry been handling the negotiations. Sanchez might have gotten 6 years at $120M.

    These events probably mean that Porcello goes on the block, and if so, is there a decent chance of the Cubs and Tigers finding the right match?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I disagree about "allowing themselves to be used;" I have to think Mato's name is mud in the Cubs FO today. I hope none of his clients want to come to Chicago, because that may not be happening in the near future.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Mato just screwed any client who wants to be a future Cub.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    You are all taking this much to personally... I would be very disappointed in our FO if they were this reactionary to what amounts to good business on the part of Mato... His obligation is to Sanchez... The cubs had a legitimate shot, but they had to outbid a contender... How is this the fault of the agent? Until we are a contender this will be the norm... Nothing wrong with it, just business... It would have been quite the coupe to get the second best pitcher in FA for a 100 loss team. Especially on a deal at value. It just wasn't in the cards.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jordan Dutcher:

    If it played out like this, you are correct. The reports seem to indicate, though, that the Cubs had a good-faith agreement with Sanchez's agent, who then leaked the deal to Bob Nightengale in order to get the Tigers -- where Sanchez wanted to go all along -- to counter. If that isn't expressly against any MLB guidelines it is, at the very least, shady.

    I'm disappointed but not crushed by this. The fundamentals of this team are still strong and the Cubs will find another good pitcher to spend $75 million on. Maybe Matt Garza, who could well be a better buy than Sanchez.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Mike, I suspected all along that you are correct, but I wanted to throw it out there just to see if it would stick. At least the Cubs know who they're dealing with now should it ever be necessary to do so again, but it may not be. Mato represents more football players than baseball players. The only baseball players I could find connected to him were Sanchez and Jose Valverde. He was Manny Ramirez's agent before they had a falling out in 2009.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I was kind of considering this possibility as well. There is a lot of gamesmanship with agent/media/front office all streaming information and misinformation. A 5 year deal for a mid-rotation SP just doesn't seem like a fit with the current plan. Makes me wonder how legit our interest ever was...

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Who really knows who played who?..... There's reports all over twitter that Detroits initial offer was 4yrs @ $48MM. So they're patting Theo/Jed on the back for driving up the price on Sanchez to make Porcello available.... who knows? I doubt any us not directly involved will ever know.

    Mato was Manny Ramirez's agent, so you know Theo/Jed are very familiar with him and how he works. He's also Jose Valverde's agent, so Detroit knows him well. I doubt either team "black-lists" him if he represents a player they covet.

    A quick google search shows Mato was originally employed by "Steinberg & Moorad". That firm was a merger of Leigh Steinberg's & Jeff Moorad's agencies. That firm is now dissolved as they went their separate ways after lots of litigation....

    This is the same Jeff Moorad that the movie Jerry McGuire was modeled after. He also assembled the investors and purchased the Padres recently. Initially as a minority owner & Padres CEO, but bought out the other owners last year and is now the sole owner. This Jeff Moorad was Mato's mentor....

    I'd suggest that Theo/Jed know Mato (and his tactics) very well and given their track record don't strike me as the types that get "played" by anybody. The FA game is changing from the bidding wars Theo is used to with the "evil empire" and so his tactics may be changing....

    I don't like the "lost" deals anymore than anyone else. But we don't have anything showing that this was necessarily anything our FO did wrong.....

  • Sanchez signing makes it likely that the Tigers make Porcello available...though most of the rumors point to a deal with the Pirates involving Hanrahan.

  • fb_avatar

    Bummer... Barney and Marmol for Porcello and Garcia/Dirks? (dreaming of course)

  • It looks like Mato and Sanchez are getting ripped on by multiple reporters now. Ricketts and Theo went to Miami to make offer and sign Sanchez, then he goes back to Detroit. Comparing him to Furcal in 08 who agreed to a deal with Atlanta only to take the deal to the Dodgers to get more money.
    The good thing is from Heyman reports it sounds like the Cubs upped the offer then pulled it. Good for them.

Leave a comment