Advertisement:

Anthony Rizzo locked up by Cubs, Samardzija and Garza next?

Anthony Rizzo locked up by Cubs, Samardzija and Garza next?

These are heady times to be a Cubs fan. I have always truly envied franchises that preemptively locked up their young talent.

Cleveland was really good at it back in the 90’s when they had a wealth of young stars coming through their organization. Tampa Bay has been sort of the model franchise of late.

Now the Cubs are among those smart organizations. That’s right, the Cubs. The franchise that let Greg Maddux walk is locking up young talent on club friendly deals. First it was Starlin Castro, and now it is Anthony Rizzo’s turn to be Evan Longoria-ed. Ken Rosenthal was the first to report the deal, a seven-year contract extension worth $41 million.

The deal runs through 2019 and, according to Rosenthal, includes two club options that could extend the deal through 2021, which would bring the total value of the contract to $70 million. Escalators could push the contract to $73 million. 2 club options, you read that right. This isn’t Stanton Cook’s Cubs anymore.

This deal comes on the heels of GM Jed Hoyer talking about not waving the white flag just yet, and his team taking 2 out of 3 from the Nationals.

Furthermore, Rosenthal drops this tidbit on us.

The club also would like to sign right-hander Jeff Samardzija and possibly righty Matt Garza to extensions as well.

New Samardzija paper would come as no surprise to many, but Garza would send some shock waves for sure. I’ve reported before that Garza indeed wants to stick around. However, it has been no secret the Cubs have been looking to cash in on their best trade chip. Could it just be public posturing to have Garza mentioned in same breath? That was my initial suspicion.

However, I’m told tonight that Garza could indeed be locked up if he is willing to take a discount, a now plausible scenario following a 10 month layoff.

I personally would not be completely shocked if the Cubs thought he could provide better value sticking around, if they can get him at their price. John has mentioned liking this scenario lately as well.

Either way the newly locked up Rizzo is showing some real growth of late, and coincidentally so is this organization.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Most excellent news. Now hopefully he continues to rake even after receiving his big payday.

  • I know the idea of Garza being locked up longer has been bandied about ad nauseum here, but I think it makes good sense. To me the idea of a 1-4 in the SP staff of Samardzija, Garza, Jackson, (Appel/Gray) for the next few years is a fine proposition. While I know there's some pitching talent in the minors currently, it's some years off. A healthy Garza would provide a top of rotation stop gap until that talent arrives or would augment it nicely if it arrives early. If we were ready to give decent money for the likes of Anibal Sanchez/Edwin Jackson I think Garza fits in somewhere.
    Oh, and I digress, love the Rizzo signing!

  • In reply to Denim Dan:

    That rotation looks really good with T Wood at 5 don't it?

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    It sure would. Who wouldn't want "the best pitcher in baseball" as their number 5??

  • fb_avatar

    Rehashing on what I said in the last article, great deal for the Cubs. The club options at the end of the deal with no no-trade clauses was brilliant. The exact kind of thing I expect from this FO. They are smart. Similar to Castro If Rizzo stays where he is it's a solid deal and if he gets better(all indications are he will) then it's a bargain and you get all his best years and no down ones.

    Deals like these should be the only 5yr+ deals we hand out. Locking up our young players. Shark up next.

  • fb_avatar

    This is great news Tom, and I'm all for extending Shark and Garza to team friendly deals. If Pierce Johnson keeps improving and the Cubs draft either Appel or Gray, things could get crowded.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    And that's not even mentioning Cabrera and Vizcaino if they pan out as starters. Hey, you just can't have too much high ceiling pitching. The more the merrier.

  • I'm still skeptical a bit on Garza but it makes sense on both sides. John points out not good FA pitching out there and Garza wants to stay, let's see how bad.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    I am skeptical on Garza for a few reasons, but notably the dislike of 'no trade' clauses. Believe it or not but Garza is in year 8 in the big leagues and year 3 with the Cubs. 10 and 5 would come with any extension over a 1 yr deal. The team and front office would lose a lot of flexibility with any deal on Garza a player with some injury history and looking at age 30. Not that he is old, but the risk will only go up from here.

  • fb_avatar

    Is it possible that signing Garza means the offers they're getting reflect concern about his injury history? And as such he's more valuable on a team friendly deal than being dealt?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I think it depends on what a team is offering. If were not going to get good value for him(more than a comp pick level), sign him. If a team is still going to give you multiple top prospects I think Cubs have to do it.

    There was one report of Arizona maybe willing to do Skaggs and Corbin for Garza and Russell. I do that deal in a heartbeat.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Are they kidding? Id take Skaggs and Corbin anyday for Garza/Russell. Please, make that trade.

  • So let's say Garza can get a 5 year, $80M contract in free agency similar to the one Sanchez got.

    What's the discount that the Cubs would offer? 4 years, $60M?

    I'm still living in a fantasyland where we trade Garza to a team where we know he'd never re-sign (Royals) and then sign him in the offseason. Let's hope if the Cubs do deal him, they sit him down right before the trade is finalized and let him know how much they want him back next year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I think 4/60 is about right. Maybe even 3/38. Not sure I trust Garza to stay healthy for 4 years.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I agree with that thinking, I would rather trade him but I don't the value was ever there for Garza.

  • Now Kaplan just reported Cubs will spend this offseason.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    If they could move Soriano, I'd like them to consider Sin-Soo Choo. I know he'll be 31, but for the right deal, he'd be worth it..

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Really short deal.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I could definitely see it if one of both of Soriano/Shierholtz are moved. Being 31 I wouldn't want to commit more than 2-3 years but the way he's playing somebody is going to give him 4-5yrs. Not sure I want him for that long.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I think I'd rather have Choo than Ellsbury.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Agreed. I want no part of Jacoby Ellsbury. Got hyped up from one good year. Nothing special.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I could see the Cubs giving Ellsbury a Adrian Beltre-type deal. 1 year/$12M to establish health and value. I'd imagine there would be a handshake agreement that the Cubs wouldn't offer him a QO. I'd do that deal. One more stop-gap year to give Almora 'more' time.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Not necessarily a good thing imo unless spending means locking up more core players. Not a single player in FA i'd feel comfortable handing a long term deal to. Maybe implement Boston's strategy? Instead of one big FA, sign 2-3 mid-tier FA's to short-term deals?

  • Anyone seeing this multiple news as not a coincidence? This thing is getting pushed into another gear.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    FO must be happy to take that Nats series.

  • Someone say public support?

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Let's not be presumptuous. Perhaps Mayor Stephens is ponying up for some new contracts...

  • In reply to Denim Dan:

    Ha!

  • Really exciting news about Rizzo. I heard and came straight to the Den.

    Assuming a team-friendly deal, good health, and only signing one, would you rather sign Samardzija or Garza long term?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CGunz:

    Samardzija hands down. He's got the higher ceiling, fresher arm, and history of clean health.

  • In reply to CGunz:

    Shark.

  • In reply to CGunz:

    Large Mardj!

  • Right now I'm really liking this direction. To me, once Rizzo made the adjustment this year to how pitchers were approaching him, I thought that he was going to be a big leaguer for a long, long time. The kid just has it.

    As for the pitchers, sign them both. I doubt you can get much for Garza anyway. Keep him and suddenly you have 4 solid starters in Shark, Garza, EJax and Wood -- all under 30 right now if I'm not mistaken. Then you add Gray or Appel in a couple of years? I think that's a legit rotation for a 1st division team.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree, Rizzo really won me over when he showed he could make adjustments. Poor Brian LaHair never really quite understood this concept.

    I've always been a fan of extending Garza vs trading him. We'd have to get surplus value for him. Right now we couldn't get much. We dont want to sell low, we buy low...so extend him. Doesn't mean we cant deal him this winter or next deadline, right?... or keep him!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I'm not going to say Garza has no trade value right now, but in a trade straight up for Garza, the Cubs aren't going to get what they would've gotten last summer. They'd have to package him with other players to get that now, and he'd have to come out of the gate pitching like a Cy Young candidate. However, if he's pitching that well upon his return, why would you not want to extend him? The other thing extending him does is reestablish his time value in case they would wish to trade him in the future, assuming he doesn't get a blanket NTC.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Utopian world?

    You wouldn't want to extend him if you knew he was already coming back next year. Trade him, have him finish out the year with a team like the Royals, bring him back next year on a FA contract.

    So, what's better, prospects OR an extension? How about prospects and re-signing him?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I'm a little confused by you statement, but if I'm reading you correctly, that's also a possibility, but it's a less certain outcome. The thing is that you don't know he is coming back next year. If you don't trade him before 7-31-13, all you can do is make him a qualifying offer, which might limit his value on the free agent market. He might accept the qualifying offer, or some team might find him to be worth losing a draft pick over, and then you get the compensation pick. If you can lock him up now, it's a more certain outcome, and it's probably a better outcome. If you trade him, he is for sure going to hit the free agent market, unless the team that trades for him extends him, but if he does hit free agency, then you're going to have teams bidding against you.

    I was saying last summer that I thought this injury made it more likely he could be resigned to a team friendly deal. Frankly, I think he could have gotten a Danks like or Sanchez like extensiion last spring if he hadn't been so adamant about the NTC.

    I've always been on the fence about resigning Garza versus trading him. I can see both sides of it, but John is right about not easily replacing Garza. Those kinds of trades rarely work out that way.

  • love the rizzo deal, puts the cubs in an excellent position in the next few years and the distant future.

    IMO sign shark and trade garza. if garza really lights the world on fire when he comes back then that will increase my want to trade him, if he's not so good when he comes back then signing him to a long term deal doesnt make too much sense.

    this offseason im hoping the cubs grab at least one of garza, phil hughes or masahiro tanaka and right now im not so sure that i prefer garza over the other two.

    id like to get ellsbury in free agency. something in line with 5/75 would be okay, although id prefer 4/60.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jshmoran:

    I don't think Ellsbury is anywhere near worth those numbers. He's been a slightly above replacement level player or injured every year except the MVP season. Not to mention he's already 31. He's this years Micheal Bourn.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Ellsbury is 29.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Roscoe Village:

    Sorry I meant to say he'll be almost 31 by the time next season rolls around. Turns 30 in September.

  • I like the money for Rizzo, with the high ceiling for Rizzo it's almost a can't lose deal for the Cubs. The one I feel bad for is Big Dan, although the Cubs will surely still develop him, as a 2nd rounder I wonder if he will be a trade sweetener within the next year?

  • Is their anything new on MLB's investigation on the Florida Steriod/HGH Doctor? It's been pretty quiet I have not read much in the last 4-6 weeks.

  • Rizzo is not only a great talent, he's looking very much like a great leader, too. His attitude is marvelous, imo. When you put together his presence at the plate, his defense, and that leadership quality, you've got a gem. Kudos to the FO!

  • I want the month and a half of time back that I wasted trying to tell everyone that this whole hullabaloo (great word) about "service time" was a complete waste of time because if Rizzo was the player they thought he was they were going to lock him up early- back. I want that month and a half back..... Ahh forget it, I'd just spend it playing Bioshock Infinite. Anyway, when this comes up again, Not when Baez comes up because he'll be traded, but when say Pierce Johnson comes up...just remember the whole "service time debate" and how incredibly awesome and right your ol' buddy Felzz was....

    Would love to see them lock up Garza and Samardzija. Pitching is just so precious You should hold on to whatever good pitching you have....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to felzz:

    It does matter, though, because his likely earnings through the arbitration process impact the deal he'll accept to buy them out.

  • In reply to felzz:

    Felzz, you were right as usual. But once Jed and Theo saw Rizzo make that somersault-bobble-grab catch in DC, they had to sign him up. Right then they knew it was a portent, a harbinger,an omen; just like the Romans reading the tea leaves in the liver of an eagle flying towards the sun.

  • Nice move. Now we have Rizzo, Castro and Soler locked up long term on team friendly contracts. Let's get Shark and Garza now. Maybe next year we might want to do Wood if he continues the way he is going.

  • I'm beggining to come around to the sign "Garza to an extension" perspective, provided we do indeed get a significant hometown discount. I would be fine with a 4 years/$60 million deal, but doesn't it seem likely that Garza is going to want to be in a higher class than the Jackson deal?

    From a Garza perspective, if he does indeed sign a team-friendly extension wnat kind of assurances should he expect from the Cubs to protect against being traded (as the FO isn't providing NTCs)?

  • Love the extension! Was just reading Kaplan's article on how the Cubs will be buyers in FA over the winter.

    Just as a thought, might the Cubs be buyers in July also? Yes, I know we are not winning anything this year. But this would pre-load the roster for '14.

    Of course it would depend on who's available, but why wait, when you can shorten your wish list this year!

  • Sign Choo
    Trade for Stanton
    Cubs are suddenly good

    Really good.

    If we can hang on to a few top prospects like Soler, Maples and PJ, I'd trade just about anything in the minors for Stanton, immediately extend him, and then start jumping for joy at our success.

  • In reply to HackWilson09:

    If Stanton is available, the Cubs have to do what it takes to get him. Castro-Rizzo-Stanton in the middle of your line up for the next 7 years makes you a contender. Especially if you pair that up with a Garza, Shark, Wood, Jackson, Appell/Gray starting staff. I love prospects too but I doubt any of them end up being what Stanton is already at age 23

  • fb_avatar

    I'm thinking something along the lines of what Anibal Sanchez got from the Tigers is appropriate for Garza, and it's a starting point for Samardzija.

    Extending Garza has an added benefit. It reestablishes his time value in case the Cubs wish to trade him at some future point. This assumes, of course, he doesn't get a blanket NTC. It's not hard to see a scenario where Pierce Johnson makes Garza expendable.

    The flip side of that is that it's not hard to see extending Garza, especially if the Cubs draft Appel or Gray, making Johnson expendable. It's a double edged sword fully capable of cutting both ways.

  • So the Cubs will be spenders this offseason to come, but will there be anything worth buying? I agree with the skepticism toward Ellsbury -- the only way I'd want him is on a deal loaded with incentives, but Boras isn't going to settle for that, and there will be some gullible GM who takes the bait.

    My hunch is that the spending this team has planned will be team-friendly deals for our farm products, while we trade prospects for prospects. With Rizzo's deal, Vogelbach is put squarely on the trading block, and maybe we can package him in a deal for a promising OF.

    Still, it seems like the Cubs are in a bit of a no-man's land with other positions. At 2B and 3B for instance, we would need to sign a free agent to a long-term deal, blocking a prospect like Baez or Alcantra. More likely, we'll have to stick with the 2012 / 2013 strategy of filling those positions with journeymen till the prospects are ready.

    So I'm excited about locking up Rizzo, and it's great to see that our future rotation is looking good. But it still seems like this team will need some very lucky bounces to be competitive in 2014.

  • fb_avatar

    On Garza: I have to think the Cubs are still unsure of what to do with him, or the Royals wouldn't have people scouting his rehab performances. That makes me think there's a lot we don't know happening there. I'd also like him to be extended -- he seems like a good teammate in addition to a well above average pitcher -- but am expecting him to be moved.

    By the way: is anyone else getting a "your comment needs to be approved" message when they post, or is that just happening with me?

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Nope, not just you. I got one when I posted after the game yesterday.

  • In reply to CubsFanInNorway:

    I've had three "administrator" messages in the last two days. Thought it was for salty thoughts and crusty attitude though.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Depending upon who you believe, the Royals are also scouting Feldman. The Cubs could be a one stop shop for the Royals. They need a starter, an outfielder, a second baseman, and they could probably use another LHRP.

    What would Feldman, DDJ, Barney and Russell be worth? They'd be getting three players who would be part of their team for next season. Valbuena, since he was originally a second baseman, could also be part of that equation. So what would Feldman, DDJ, Valbuena and Russell be worth?

    I'd have to start with their compensation pick, but after that, there are a lot of different directions one could go. Mondesi would be high on that list. I'd certainly ask for Zimmer just to see if they would do it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I like the idea of that deal. Actually sounds realistic unless this Price Stanton nonsense. Id probably look at that comp pick, Starling, and 1-2 of their high ceiling pitching prospects.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Can't see KC wanting Barney though. They already have a slick-fielding 2b in Chris Getz, whose bat, alas, is about the same as Darwin's. Valbuena might work for them though.
    DDJ, definitely. He'd be a perfect LH platoon in RF with Francoeur.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Yeah, I can see them wanting Valbuena. But they're going to have to pay up because we could use him, too.

    One way or another, they need some help before that team slips out of contention. They really need to make a move sooner rather than later.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Well, that is the thing isn't it. You might actually be able to take some of the prospects you get from KC and deal them to Miami for Stanton. That would keep the Cubs from cleaning out their entire system.

    With Starling and Baez as the centerpieces of a trade for Stanton, the Cubs might not have to give up that much pitching to get it done.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I've gotten that message more than once, not sure what's up. Might be just a glitch.

  • I'm even getting those.

  • fb_avatar

    Here is what I'm thinking about next season.

    Starting Rotation

    Samardzija R
    Garza R
    Jackson R
    Wood L
    Baker R

    I don't see this front office allowing either Gray or Appel to start the season in the major leagues, and if Baker is brought back, assuming he is ready to go, they don't have to. This doesn't mean we might not see Appel or Gray this coming September just to give them a taste, and I'm sure they would be in big league camp next spring, but why be in a rush if you don't have to be? Besides, how many teams would be able to say that they had a 6th starter of that quality?

    I personally think it would be a good thing for either Appel or Gray to pitch at least one entire season, between 2013 and 2014, in the minors before being called up for good, and it has nothing to do with not starting their clocks towards free agency and arbitration. It has to do with paying ones dues and the acclimation and maturation process of a ball player. I don't believe in throwing kids to the wolves, and I don't think this FO does either.

    I'd really like to see the Cubs add Choo in the offseason. He just seems a perfect fit for what this FO wants to do. Yes, he'll be 31, and Marcel might be right about him getting a 4 or 5 year deal, but for what he could bring to the Cubs now, he might be worth it. I'm also hoping Brett Jackson finally turns the corner and plays his way into the lineup this summer, and if a trade for Giancarlo Stanton should present itself, I'm for it as long as they don't overpay. Imagine this if you will.

    Rf Choo L
    2b Watkins L
    Lf Stanton R
    1b Rizzo L
    Ss Castro R
    Cf Jackson L
    3b Valbuena L
    Ca Castillo R

    I've been thinking for a while that Watkins and Barney might make a solid platoon at second, and perhaps Vitters or Villanueva might make a good platoon partner with Valbuena at third base.

    The bullpen is going to need to be overhauled, but maybe not completely. It would be nice if the Cubs could find some internal solutions to those problems, but there should be plenty of options to choose from this winter in the free agent pool.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    If we spend this offseason on FA, I think it should be at 3B or in the outfield. Those are the the two areas of crying need.

    Choo would fit with that

    I see many posters here dismissive of Ellsbury; certainly he aint' worth $100 mil. But I think GMs see the same things we do, that the one season was an outlier.

    Would you be interested if Ellsbury was significantly LESS than Choo? Because that is very possible

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Zonk:

    Zonk, have you looked at the list of potential free agent third baseman for this coming off season? Please have something handy to throw up in before you do. It's that awful, and the choice of outfielders isn't much better.

    Shin-Soo Choo is hitting free agency at the right time. Nate McLouth might be a value type signing, but he is a platoon player. There just isn't a whole lot to pick from out there.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I've been thinking for a while that the play is to sign Utley to a high dollar, short term contract and move him to third, where his bat from this season would play, and either keep Barney at second or move Valbuena to second.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    That's scary because I thought the same thing, but do you want to give up a draft pick to sign him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    That's assuming the Phillies make the qualifying offer. That team is hurting for money, and looking like a rebuild is coming. It might not make financial sense.

    If they do make the offer, though, I'd be wary.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Agreed, he is much more attractive if you don't have to give up a draft pick for him.

  • On Valpo Jeff, there were reports before the season began that the Cubs offered him a lockup deal, and he wouldn't take it.

    On the other hand, I don't see any point to locking up Garza.

  • In reply to jack:

    That was being reported, but Carrie Muskat quoted Jeff as saying they haven't had any talks, that him & the Cubs had other priorities right then but that they were on the same page.

    http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2013/03/16/316-samardzija-were-on-the-same-page/

  • Our problem has never been that we don't have some nice pieces, just that the pieces we don't have are barely replacement level (bullpen and 3B immediately come to mind). Locking up the young attractive pieces we do have and continuing to work on filling gaps on the pieces we don't have either through selective use of FA's or coaching 'em up in the minors? YES PLEASE.

    Rizzo, Castro, Shark, and Garza would be a really nice core to build off of, especially with this year's #2 pick, Vizcaino, Soler, and Cabrera all potentially joining the party by 2015-16.

    Does it help my patience with the timeline to have taken 2 of 3 from the Nats this weekend? Yes, yes it does

  • fb_avatar

    If Matt Garza wanted to maximize his contract $, he should spurn the Cubs offers and hit FA. That is, if he is confident he can return to health and full-form this season.

    For Garza to even talk about an extension would tell me that he really really does want to stay, and is willing to give up some $ to do so.

    The question of whether it's a good idea to extend Garza or not boils down entirely to "How Much". Without seeing some numbers, it's hard to opine on it......

  • In reply to Zonk:

    "How much" is correct, and frankly, should be the one and only reason to extend any of our players of value. Any and all of the players that the Cubs sign to contracts should be giving the Cubs value, either through dollars or brevity of length (or both).

    If a young, valuable-enough player is willing to sign a contract that is below market value, we should sign/extend that player 9 times out of 10. If not, and we're not winning yet, we should trade that player 9 times out of 10.

  • fb_avatar

    I wonder if a package centered around Baez and Vogelbach for Stanton would work? Two florida products as a centerpiece for a player that will pretty rapidly be out of the Marlins price range. At least he will be before they are competing again.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Crash Davis:

    That wouldn't be close to enough. Maybe half. Marlins wouldn't trade Stanton for main pieces still in A-ball. They want near ML ready talent. Maybe a few years from now when Baez and Vogelbomb are more proven.

  • fb_avatar

    Don't hold your breath on Stanton guys. Have already made it known that if they ever put him on the block they will expect nothing less than a kings ransom including major league ready talent. Also reports are if he ever becomes available Texas will jump on
    him. All they have to do is dangle Profar and were beat.

    We just don't match up. Trading 4-5 players for a right fielder no matter how good just productive imo. Especially one who been injured just about every year. Some reports even say he has bad knees. Not worth it. Are you guys willing to lose Baez, Soler, and Allots? Because that's the kind of package Miami is going to want.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    The D'backs said the same about Upton. At some point, they're going to have take what's offered. As a result if a mismatch between asking price and offer, he may not be moved this winter, but that only hurts the Marlins as the team that eventually trades for him loses a year of cost control.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    All of that is true. They have to accept the best offer they can. The problem is they will take the best offer that includes major league ready young talent. All we have to offer are prospects in A-ball. If Texas offers Profar(which all indications are they will) were done. Or maybe Cardinals dangle Taveras. I just don't see us as a match.

  • The extension breakdown, per Jon Heyman: Rizzo: $2M sign bonus, $750K '13 $1.25M '14, $5M '15 & '16, $7M '17 & '18, $11M '19, cubs option $14.5M '20 & '21.

    If he's the player we think he'll be in his prime, that's a ridiculous steal for those salaries.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Weihofen:

    I can see the reason Rizzo signed it too; in addition to $41 mil guaranteed, he gets money sooner, and likely gave up money on the back-end for that priviledge

    Instead of $480K this year, he'll earn a total of nearly $2.7 mil.....that's a nice bump for him. $2 mil check right now is nothing to sneeze at. That's a powerful incentive for a guy that was not a big draft-bonus baby (as a 6th-round pick)

    The price of the guarantee, for Rizzo, were those club options; club options are gold, particularly multi-year ones like that

  • Rizzo deal looks excellent....but when Tom said the Cubs failed to sign Maddux was incorrect....Maddux had a better offer from the Cubs than the Braves....reason why Maddux left was he could not face his teammate after having sexual affair with his teammate's wild wife.....Cubs did not fail, it was Maddux good judgement that failed to stay away from married women.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Maddux didn't have an affair with Sandberg's wife. That was Palmiero, and there were also rumors that she was sleeping around with Jerome Walton and Dwight Smith.

    You are right that Maddux left money on the table to sign with the Braves, but it's because Maddux didn't want to be the next Ferguson Jenkins. He knew just what lousy shape the Cubs franchise was in, and he wanted to win.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    First off I hope Cubs Talk was joking, secondly the only reason Maddux bolted was because Stanton Cook and another trib suit took a deal off the table Maddux was ready to sign. It was a lack of foresight on the Cubs part.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Gotcha!

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    That's more or less the way I recall it - Maddux had a much bigger offer from the Yankees, so the Cubs thought they were beat and signed Guzman pre-maturely (didn't want to be left empty handed). Then when Maddux decided he didn't want to play in NY and would probably take what the Cubs were offering, they "couldn't" offer that anymore. So he took a similar offer with the Braves.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    In the end you may be right about winning once he hit FA but he was ready to sign deal a year earlier.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Yeah, I think that was all about getting a WS ring.... Can't really blame him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I thought it was Dave Martinez who slept with Cindy Sandberg. Then abruptly moved for Mitch Webster!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dale Miller:

    Man, this conversation has gone down hill quickly. Yes, Martinez was part of those rumors. I knew I was missing someone, but today was the first I'd ever heard of Greg Maddux being connected with her. It sounds like we have a troll who can't get over Maddux leaving the Cubs to go win a WS. To me, it's perfectly understandable why Maddux left. He wanted to win, and if Tom is right about the deal being pulled a year earlier, he was probably pissed off too.

    I think the deal Maddux originally signed with the Braves was worth $26M. I believe that the Cubs attempted to match it with a deal that was worth $28M. By the time that happened, Maddux has already made up his mind. He wanted out of the circus, and I can't say I blame him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Tom's version is the one I've heard. It was one of the more asinine stunts in the history of Cub ownership. And that is saying something.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I had heard Tom's version, but I'd always been under the impression that the Cubs attempted to make a last minute effort to keep Maddux, and he had had enough.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Please say you are kidding.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    It's the second or third time he's made that claim. Pretty soon a cease and desist from Maddux's attorney will arrive.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I never said it was Maddux's wife.......but you did!

    You will be in court before I will.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Where did he say it was Maddux's wife? Why are you bringing up ancient history anyways, especially ancient history you can't substantiate. Hell, you don't even have your rumors straight. In all these years, I've heard all kinds of rumors involving Sandberg's ex-wife, but never have I heard Greg Maddux's name connected with her until today.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    CT, you need to renew your med's prescription

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    I only would say it if I had reliable sources.....and the information came from past Cubs coaches who told me many good inside Cubs stories........plus the Cubs infidility issues was talked about on local sports radio shows in the past.

  • fb_avatar

    Something just occurred to me: isn't it a little ironic that we just gave 6th round pick Anthony Rizzo 41/7 at the same time we're telling everyone who will listen that impact pitchers come from anywhere in the draft whereas position players are best found in the first two rounds?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Yes, but as a general rule, it's true, but there are always exceptions.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I'm not sure it's as true as people claim -- and perhaps a head fake to try to convince the Asrtos to take a hitter.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I think it gets skewed as well. In the past, you've had kids who should have gone a lot earlier than they did over questions of signability, but that is an issue with pitchers as well.

    I think it's pretty well documented that hitters taken in the first round have fared better than pitchers taken in the first round, but as with everything there are exceptions.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    That is why I think Bryant has to be a major consideration. There are few pitchers hitting mid 90s that aren't getting a lot media attention that could be available as far back as the 4 round.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Yes, but top two pitchers are a different story. Cubs may have to amend that philosophy based on their draft position and the fact that top 2 players available are pitchers.

  • Castro
    13:$5M, 14:$5M, 15:$6M, 16:$7M, 17:$9M, 18:$10M, 19:$11M, 20:$16M club option ($1M buyout)

    Soler
    13:$1M, 14:$2M, 15:$2M, 16:$3M, 17:$3M, 18:$4M, 19:$4M, 20:$4M

    Rizzo
    13: $2.750M, 14:$1.25M, 15:$5M 16:$5,17: $7M 18:$7M, 19: $11M 20: $14.5M (option) 21: $14.5M (option)

    E. Jackson
    13:$11M, 14:$11M, 15:$11M, 16:$11M

  • In reply to ucandoit:

    I think E Jackson got an 8M signing bonus so he will make $19M in 2013.

  • Soler can opt out of the deal and go for arbitration once he is eligible though. Still a great deal for the Cubs if he pans out. But we could be paying him $15M+ per year once he is established. The upside is that if we are paying him that much, he is producing at a high level. And its great because we aren't locked in to that amount per year. Soler will truly be getting paid what he is worth every year, because it will be based on his track record and the previous year's performance. Downside is that a team can only cut a players salary by 20% from year to year, right??

Leave a comment