Samardzija rumors resurface, but offseason trade still unlikely

Samardzija rumors resurface, but offseason trade still unlikely

Now that Masahiro Tanaka is with the Yankees, and the only potential impact pitcher still left not tied to compensation, Matt Garza, has signed with the Brewers, the options for teams looking to acquire short term pitching help have dwindled.

Only Ubaldo Jimenez and Ervin Santana remain on the market and both are tied to comp picks.  There's no way around it at this point.  If you want one of the top pitchers left on the market, you are going to have to give up at least one young player.

Meanwhile in Chicago, there seems to be little progress with regard to signing Jeff Samardzija to an extension.  In fact, the two sides have yet to agree to a deal for 2014.  Samardzija is looking for $6.2M and the Cubs have offered $4.4M.  We all know the real value payout will end up somewhere in between, probably around the $5.5M range.

That salary makes him a bargain for teams looking to save payroll space, but only if they're willing to give up a lot more in terms of player compensation.

Both Jon Heyman and Bruce Levine both tweeted recently that the Blue Jays have kept in contact with the Cubs regarding Samardzija while earlier reports had suggested the Orioles were doing the same.  I've also heard an unconfirmed rumor that the Mariners remain interested.

It's more than likely that the teams are just keeping tabs and leaving the door open.  There is no indication that any momentum has been gained with any of these teams.  Judging by the Cubs reported asking prices, there's also no indication that the team is all that eager to trade him at this point.

Still, the Cubs have to be prepared to deal Samardzija.  If he doesn't want to sign an extension, then he becomes a 2 year player and that doesn't do the Cubs a lot of good given that most don't expect the Cubs to contend until 2016.  Even if they'd rather have Samardzija remain as part of their core it doesn't make sense to do that if they are going to lose him before they are ready to win.  Especially not if a team is willing to give up a top package of prospects.

The Cubs do have time on their side.

They have Samardzija under control for two more years.  That gives them 2 years to try and put together a competitive ballclub and convince him to stay.  Judging that the Cubs have picked up the following players at the deadline the last two years for rental pitchers: Arodys Vizcaino, Kyle Hendricks, Christian Villanueva, Jake Arrieta, Pedro Strop, Mike Olt, Justin Grimm, CJ Edwards, and Neil Ramirez -- what exactly is the incentive for the Cubs to settle for anything less than what they want now?

They are certainly going to want a lot more for two years of Samardzija than they did for 2 months of Paul Maholm, Ryan Dempster or Matt Garza.  And if they don't get significantly more, they're better off waiting until the deadline -- when they have proven they can extract surplus value once those teams have a greater sense of urgency to make a deal.  In the meantime the Cubs can get at least a half to one and 1/2 years more of production from Samardzija without a significant loss in return.  The Cubs have no reason to sell now at a price that they can likely extract later.

That's the decision teams that are interested in Samardzija will have to make.   Do they want to pay a premium to get the extra 1/2 to 1 1/2 years with Samardzija or do they wait until the 2014 or 2015 deadline and get less value in return?

For the Cubs, should they make a trade, the task would be to replace Samardzija in the short term.  It'd be interested to see what they decide.  They could decide to replace him with Ubaldo Jimenez or Ervin Santana if they feel they can get an extra player (or perhaps even a competitive lottery pick) in a deal to replace the cost of a 2nd round pick.  But that is anything but easy.  Such a deal would probably have to be set up as a PTBNL, there is no certainty that type of pick would be available to the team that deals for Samardzija.  I find this whole scenario to be a long shot, though it wouldn't surprise me if that idea was tossed around a bit.

The bottom line here is that, barring an exceptional offer, the Cubs have every incentive to wait here so rumors or no rumors, I expect Samardzija to open the season with the Cubs.  What happens from there is anybody's guess.

Filed under: Rumors/Speculation

Tags: Jeff Samardzija


Leave a comment
  • I don't want to lose him. I think he has great stuff and is still learning how to use it effectively. (Just the kind of upside that everyone has been lusting after with A/AA prospects we got.) That said, are you saying he is willing to sign a long term @ $6.6M/yr? Why wouldn't you do so, even at that amount?
    Bargain for what he is, now. And the LT contract would make him even more attractive to another team should you decide to deal him.

  • In reply to xhooper:

    Samardzija filed for $6.6 million in his second year of arbitration eligibility. He would absolutely not accept a multiyear extension at that AAV. Wild ass guess, he wants more than $15 million annually on a long term deal.

  • $6.6M is what Samardzija is asking for in arbitration, not in terms of an annual salary in a long-term extension.

  • In reply to John Kerth:

    Oops, I meant $6.2M.

  • In reply to John Kerth:

    I say we give him the extra 400K too.

  • In reply to John Kerth:

    Yes, exactly. That's why it says in the sentence right before that they are yet to agree to a deal for 2014. If the Cubs could get him for 6.2M long term, this would have been done a long, long time ago :)

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I for one will be glad when he either resigns or is traded, I am sick and tired of this dog and pony show with Shark.

  • In reply to peoria cubfan:

    Get real! It's not Jeff's dog and pony show or Theo's either; it's 99% from the media buffoons.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I say sign Shark, flip Ejax and Burnett. The Cubs
    can guarantee Burnett that he will be in the play
    off hunt in 2014. So he gets to spend his summer
    in wrigley and then headover to a playoff contender.

  • fb_avatar

    I agree they're going to wait until the deadline. The one downside to waiting to the deadline is that they pretty much have to take whatever the contending teams have available. For a specific example, if the Rangers are the only team in the hunt for a starting pitcher and willing to move top prospects, then the Cubs will not get a top pitching prospect in return because the Rangers don't have one to give.

    Now, that may not matter as much as some think. In my semi-joke proposal of Alfaro, Gallo, Jackson from yesterday, that makes one of Alfaro/Castillo and one of Gallo/Soler redundant, and a package based around two of those guys could be the basis for bringing in another starter.

    (And, seriously, how terrifying would a 3-4-5 of Baez-Gallo-Bryant be?)

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Yep, that's the downside. Which means root for the Pirates (Kingham/Glasnow), Padres (Wisler/Fried), Orioles (Bundy/Rodriguez/Harvey), Royals (Zimmer, Almonte), Jays (Stroman, Sanchez) this year, because those are the teams that have top arms that may be available.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Then you keep him until next offseason. They do not have to trade him at the deadline if there isn't a market. If they trade him next offseason the acquiring team will still be able to QO him if they can't reach an extension with him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mjvz:

    I disagree with this logic for a couple reasons.

    First, an acquiring team that tries to trade for Shark next off-season would only get his services for one season and, hence, one playoff run, making his value to the team about 50% of what it was at the trade deadline. So, even though they have the qualifying offer, the team would still be willing to give less to get him.

    Second, given the trouble Theo has had getting sufficient value in return for him this off-season, I don't see things changing remarkably in 9 months. The offers will be pretty much the same, unless he takes a huge step forward this year.

    Related to two, Theo has shown a remarkable ability to pry players loose at the trade deadline. John had an article about the Rangers yesterday, but he also got -- and then lost -- Delgado for Dempster when Delgado was a top prospect, Vizcaino for Maholm, and Arrieta and Strop for Feldman. Wood for Marshall was an excellent deal in its own right, but that's really the only example of a big off-season trade since Theo's been here.

    Finally, going to next off-season removes a key piece of leverage from the negotiations. If he isn't extended, the Cubs essentially have to trade him before the season starts. Other GMs, knowing this, will reduce their offers accordingly. (This piece of it has fascinating game theory implications, but fully exploring them would take a paper in and of itself.)

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I disagree with all of your logic. Sorry.

    Every season does not equate to equal value. Dealing two years of Shark does not bring back twice the haul as 1 year, anymore than if we had traded him last offseason would have brought back 3x the value. The most important season for a team acquiring Shark is the current season, whether this year or next. And really it isn't even close. If the current season didn't weigh more heavily than future years, teams would never give up significant value for rentals at the trade deadline, but those trades happen every year. There is cutoff point at which teams will not offer a bigger package. Would we get the same offers next year, that we get this year? Maybe not, but they wouldn't be half the package. And if Shark takes a step forward and becomes a TOR pitcher this year, the offers will increase, or more likely wouldn't matter because the Cubs wouldn't want to deal him at that point. Really, the only significant downside is injury risk.

    Are they really not being offered significant value right now? We don't know that. They may have been offered a package you would be willing to accept, but Theo and Jed may be holding out for an overwhelming package or still hold out hope for a long term extension.

    Your third point strengthens my argument more than yours. By proving that they can get significant value for 2 month rentals in the past, they can certainly get value for a full year and 1st round comp pick. The Cubs can still get significant value for Shark next offseason or even next trade deadline. Again, the only significant risk is injury.

    And finally, the Cubs DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON SHARK BEFORE NEXT SEASON as you state. I really don't know how this logic has creeped into the pysche of Cubs fans. They are not the Rays. They can afford to pay market value. We can afford to give Shark a QO and bid for his services while he is on the open market. The Rays know they can't retain their players past a cetain point. That is just simply not the case with the Cubs. There is no leverage that opposing GMs will gain. Once again, your point that this regime has proven to extract value at the trade deadline for a guy like Garza shows that they aren't afraid to stick to their price and won't settle the way Hendry did. They have shown no willingness to budge to perceived pressure or leverage in the past. Why would they do it for a Shark trade?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mjvz:

    The facts of the Garza trade work to shatter your logic on all points. This is ideal because we know that Garza talks involved the same team (the Rangers) and we can compare the return. When the Rangers were getting him for a year and half, they offered a top 30 in all of baseball prospect (Olt) and MLB-ready TOR ceiling arm (Martin Perez).

    When the same trade happened a year later, they got substantially less. A very different and significantly reduced Mike Olt (fallen off of all Top 100 lists), a pitcher with enormous upside but just as many question marks (Perez), and two guys who profile best as relievers (Grimm and Ramirez). A good haul for two months of Matt Garza? Absolutely. Even close to Perez and Olt a year before? No way.

    In short: for two post season runs they got a lot more than for one. And it was substantially more than the value of a comp pick, so that wasn't the only thing that changed.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    First, can we be certain what the actual offers for Garza were? I know the Olt/Garza has been reported, and it seems logical, but we don't know that it is accurate unless it comes from the mouth of one of the GMs.

    I can also look at the returns from both of those deals and say that the reported deal is not twice as good as the eventual deal at least in my opinion. Better? Certainly. Twice? I don't see it. Also, we don't know what the Rangers would have given for Garza prior to last season when they would still have received a comp pick and would have gotten an entire season for Garza. Would it still have been Olt/Perez? Maybe, maybe not. But I bet it would have been at least one of them, plus more. And it would have been a hell of a lot closer to the Ot/Perez value than the deadline value.

    You are also only factoring in the potential returns for Shark when looking at the point at which he is traded and ignoring the value he currently brings to the team (I'll admit, fairly insignificant given the team has little chance to compete, but not a non zero) and you are also the fact that waiting to deal him also gives him more time to develop into the pitfcher we all hope he becomes. Trading Shark is not the only way to acquire a TOR arm. Shark may well be that himself.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    It would be awesome in the summer, not the spring. However, we don't have a DH or 1B spot for the defensively challenged Gallo.

  • I agree. I'd expect Samja to start the season with the Cubs, but as you noted, you never know. Someone may give the Cubs an offer like the Cubs gave the Rays to get Garza. No rush. It's the cat bird seat for Theo/Jed.

  • I'm just tired of talking about Samardzija and rumors... They're all the same talk since November... How about the Cubs just sign/get the missing pieces so they can start ST already? This lack of activity is so frustrating.

  • In reply to Caps:

    We got Clark!

  • One correction: Baseball has what is defined as "baseball arbitration," which means that the arbitrator can only select one offer or the other, not split the difference (nonlegal reference). Hence, the only way they end in the middle is if both sides agree to a contract before arbitration and only for one or two years, as Jeff clearly wants his free agency, or would have accepted a long term contract by now.

    Moneywise, it isn't the catbird seat for Theo if the supply of free agent pitchers is that thin, whether the Cubs decide to offer before arbitration or wait for the arbitrator on a heads or tails basis.

  • In reply to jack:

    I'm pretty sure that is what John was implying when he said that it would most likely end up being in the middle. It is doubtful that the Cubs take anyone to arbitration, and the guess is that a deal will be struck before that happens.

  • In reply to dabynsky:

    Yes...Epstein has a history of settling before arbitration. These respective figures are purposely set high and low by each party. Very likely both settle somewhere in between. $5.5M is my best guess.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    Actually, he's said many times, publicly, that he would sign an extention (foregoing free agency) if he was confident the ream was close to contending.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    The ream is probably close to contending in the grapefruit league, but the team isn't.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    I don't know what this means, but my point is: Samardzija has in no way made it "clear he wants his free agency". That is an unfair assumption (along the lines of being "all about the money") that people have thrown on him.

  • Jeff Samardzija isn't going anywhere before June,... except to the mound for the Cubs every 4th or 5th game.

    I hope to see a starting rotation to open up April of:

    #1 Samardzija
    #2 Wood
    #3 Jackson
    #4 Arietta

    With Rusin or Cabrera getting the regular starts as the #5 once the season gets regular and rolling into the Summertime rate of about 1 day off/week.

    I think you have to give Arietta a chance to demonstrate that he is, or is not, going to be able to hold down a rotation spot. Might as well get it over with quick to start out the season unless he really stinks up the place in Spring Training.

    He falls flat,... then Marshall, Hendricks, Grimm, Beeler, and Villanueva (the token veteran) get thier shots at filling the gap.

    Let's see what we've got here, rather than bringing in some FA that costs us draft picks to sign.

  • Just a gut feeling, but I suspect the Cubs have tried to sign Shark to a favorable/value extension a la Castro and Bryant. Shark on the other hand Shark wants TOR top dollar longterm deal, which he hasn't earned based on performance to date which is why Cubs are unwilling to commit to for now. I hope Shark kicks ass this year and actually earns the big bucks, long term contract.

    And to whatever extent Shark is looking for Cubs to get to true competitiveness, it would be really great if Shark's big year coincides with Castro/Rizzo rebounds, a sensational Baez June/July call-up and few other big steps forward on the rebuild. Oh, boy!

  • In reply to Teddy P:

    Samardzija is not demanding that he deserves TOR money. He's asking for more time to prove he can be that before he signs for something less. It's hard to fault him for that.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Samardzija can "afford" to be more patient than Rizzo/Castro because he received a very lucrative signing bonus to play baseball and not football. He has been compensated more than most already. I love his "I'll show you attitude" which is one reason I hope he can be signed long term.

  • In reply to Cphil:

    Agreed. Good point.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    based on what public commentary there's been, it could be both of:
    - i don't think i've pitched at at the level that i'm capable of (and is worth more to you and me)
    - i don't want to hitch my wagon to a struggling/mediocre franchise...want some assurances that the team's going to compete at a high-level for a sustained period of time before i commit long-term

    ...neither of those is "you're not offering enough of an AAV to get me to sign today." heck, if true, they could be offering him what he thinks he's worth and he STILL wouldn't sign until he saw proof the team was going to be in the thick of things for the long-term.

    my 2 cents

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    This is one of the many situations where neither side is at "fault". Samardzija is trying to do what is best for himself, and the Cubs are trying to do what is best for the Cubs.

    Sometimes, the good of the player and the good of the team coincide. This is one of those times where they are not. Samardzija wants to wait, to see if his negotiating leverage will improve. The Cubs can not afford to wait too long, or they lose trade value.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    Well put. Agree 100%.

  • I don't see any "realistic" scenario where Jiminez or Santana can ever provide any surplus value for the club that signs them. Seeing as they have draft pick comp attached to them and they're likely looking for 4+ years and Garza level money....

    I'd rather we get AJ Burnett for a 1yr or 2yr deal if he would do it. I'd gladly pay him $30M over 2 years too.... There may be no surplus value there, but we lose nothing but $$$ if he gets hurt.

    I still think we sign Jeff long term. Maybe not this season, but the reality is we need him. If we (and him) show a little progress in the development and consistency, I think both sides would want to get a LT deal done.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    The only way Jimenez and Santana provide value is if the market for them is so low that they are willing to sign 3 year deals. That removes the long term financial burden on the club in case of injury/regression. Those two guys have produced TOR results at various points in their careers, they just haven't been consistent. On a short term deal, they are absolutely worth the risk. Anything beyond three years is insanity though, especially with the draft pick compensation attached.

    Burnett is not coming here. No chance. He can get a 1-2 yr deal from a contender. He is not a reclamation project.

    I think Shark is here for the long term unless some team gets absolutely desperate and makes a stupid offer.

  • In reply to mjvz:

    I agree it's unlikely Burnett comes here when he has his choice of just about anybody. But if it's strictly being with a contender... we can certainly offer that to him.

    Would it be "no chance" if we offered him $20M with the handshake agreement that if we weren't in contention, we trade him to a contender? We could even pay his salary to increase the haul....

    Point is never say never and given the choice of either Jiminez or Santana, even on a 3yr deal, AJ Burnett is still my first choice.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Certainly doesn't hurt to try. He is the best pitcher on the market. There really isn't any downside to trying. And yes, he would absolutely be my first choice.

    If he is willing to play anywhere though and not just Pittsburgh or somewhere his family is comfortable, I would expect several contending or closer to contending teams than the Cubs could/would match any offer the Cubs could make.

  • Worst case scenario (outside of Shark getting injured) you have a 'cheap' player for the next 2 years and you get someones 1st round pick in the 2017 draft. The upside is that he takes that step forward in 2014 and you get more in return than you would now - following a solid but not good/great 2013.

    I'll say it again, I'm tired of hearing the 'we wont be competitive until 201X'. I agree with this to a certain extent, but when do you draw a line in the sand and start actually trying to build a winner while also building and developing the system? What if Bryant / Baez take steps back this year and their arrival date is pushed back to 2015? Does the 'we won't be expected to compete until.....' get pushed back to 2017? or 2018? How is our timeline to compete impacted by trading shark - realizing that Wood would be our #1 and Jackson our #2? That, is a scary thought....

  • In reply to Roscoe Village:

    They'd get a 2016 (not 2017) draft pick as compensation, but it wouldn't be from another team, the Cubs would get a compensation pick at the end of the first round.

    As for when they start actually trying to build a winner, that process began the second this front office got here.

    I personally see the impact in trading Shark to have very little impact on the competitive window. I see 2016 as being the first competitive season and I expect at least 1 player from Shark's prospect haul to be in the rotation by that point.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    If they offer him a QA, they would get the signing team's 1st round pick, (unless that team finished with a bottom 10 record). Thats why teams are gun shy about Santana / Jimenez, right? The compensation structure you are referencing is the old system of type A / B free agents.

    Its hard for me to buy that trading Shark doesn't impact the competitive window. I'd think most people would agree that a team with Shark is better than a team without Shark. That assumes that the prospect(s) we get in the trade are putting up similar numbers as people 'project' Shark to be putting up in a year or two. Obviously, there is a payroll aspect to that as well (i.e. the player received will likely be making $500K/year).

    If it were that easy, Shark would have been traded already.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Roscoe Village:

    "If they offer him a QA, they would get the signing team's 1st round pick,"

    This is incorrect. Tulane is right. If a player receives a qualifying offer, the signing team loses their first round draft pick, unless that pick is in the bottom 10, in which case they lose their second round pick. That pick just disappears into the ether. The team that lost the player receives a compensation pick between the first round and the competitive balance round A.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Wow. I stand corrected. Thought for sure you got the other teams pick.

    I'd just say that, of course STL took advantage in the last year of the old structure to draft Wacha.....

  • AJ Burnett says he wants to test the market and the Pirates didn't make him an offer so there is one other arm that doesn't require compensation. Have to think Jimenez is pissed about that.

  • AJ Burnett wants to test the market so there is one other name arm who doesn't require compensation

  • fb_avatar

    Isn't it interesting that Travis Wood had a better year and settled for $3.9 Million? Samardzija has a higher perceived value but not anything to hang your hat on statistically to say he's worth more.

    The average age of the Blue Jays roster is 28. That team has a window to win now. Can't blame them for lettng the market play out but trading for Samardzija makes terrific sense for them.

    As for the Cubs, if they do play well, it would be a PR nightmare to trade Samardzija at the deadline. I know it's a long shot but a .500 team at the deadline would have fans pretty upset if we started trading mlb talent. It's less risk to trade him now because the lack of ticket sales is a genuine problem.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dale Miller:

    Wood settled for, and was projected to earn, less than Smudge because it is his first time through the arbitration process. Arbitration salaries, right or wrong, are often weighted by serviced time.

  • In reply to Dale Miller:

    Trout will only make $1M this year (most likely). Thats the structure of the game...

  • I really hope the Cubs hold onto JS. I don't know if it is just me, but it seems most people are overlooking how much time it takes for a top prospect to "arrive" in the major leagues. Of course players like Trout or Puig come in and light the league on fire, but for most top prospects it takes a few years. The Cubs have invested so much time in developing JS (and players like Starlin Castro), I'd hate to see them traded to only have to wait three or four more years for the players the Cubs receive to become legitimate major leaguers. Why suffer through so many frustrating times to then begin the process all over again with the new players the Cubs receive from trading away a JS?

  • In reply to David23:


  • In reply to David23:

    I think that's a big argument for keeping him. The Cubs don't need to take a step backward if they can help it. That's why they are hanging on to him -- and any potential trade has to be structured around players who are ready to contribute in the very near future.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I just know I've had patience these past two years and am prepared to be patient this year, but I'd hate to get some top prospect pitcher (or two) and watch him go through the growing pains that I've witnessed JS go through the last two years. And, if JS fulfills his potential somewhere else, it would be extremely frustrating for me.

    The flip side might actually occur with Arrieta. Wouldn't it be great to see him finally fulfill his potential...on the Cubs!

  • A bit OT, but it looks like Scott Baker will sign with the Mariners on a minor league deal. According to Chris Cotillo, it will include a $1M salary if he makes the big league roster and another $3.5M in possible incentives.

    That appears to be a pretty reasonable contract, so I would guess the fact that Baker's velocity never returned after his TJ procedure led Epstein and Hoyer to conclude he wouldn't be effective going forward.

  • Apparently Matt Guerrier has signed a Minor League deal with the Twins.

    Not that he had much likelyhood of being on the Cubs roster this year anyway.

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    He really wasn't bad for the Cubs in the second half. We have better options this year, but I don't think Guerrier is done as a major leagure reliever. Wouldn't be shocked if he made their team.

  • In reply to mjvz:

    Agreed - he was a more than adequate bullpen arm prior to his 'flexor muscle' problem.

    He's still got something useful in the tank IMO - with the right team. And the Twins may be that 'right team'.

  • fb_avatar

    How bout he shows that he's worth what he's being paid now? Which he's not.

  • 14 days!!!

  • fb_avatar

    "But that is anything but easy. Such a deal would probably have to be set up as a PTBNL, there is no certainty that type of pick would be available to the team that deals for Samardzija."

    sorry, John, I lost the train of thought on this - could you clarify what you mean when you say it would have to be set up as a PTBNL?

    Also, Jon Heyman says that "Ubaldo Jimenez may now be willing to drop his salary demands and could ultimately land in the three-year, $39MM range" At that price, Ejax money, there's really no reason not to sign him to replace Shark, or even if Shark is still here - worst case scenario, last year was a fluke and he comes down to earth, you could easily trade him for the equivalent of that 2nd round pick or better.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    RE: "But that is anything but easy. Such a deal would probably have to be set up as a PTBNL, there is no certainty that type of pick would be available to the team that deals for Samardzija." (John A.)

    sorry, John, I lost the train of thought on this - could you clarify what you mean when you say it would have to be set up as a PTBNL? (SKMD)

    Yeah, I don't get what John is saying either. Why would it have to be a PTBNL? The Competive Balance Picks are known right now...

    Competitive Balance Round A
    34. Colorado Rockies
    35. Houston Astros (from the Orioles)
    36. Miami Marlins (M. Krook - unsigned)
    37. Cleveland Indians
    38. Miami Marlins
    39. Kansas City Royals
    40. Milwaukee Brewers

    Competitive Balance Round B
    70. Arizona Diamondbacks (from the Padres)
    71. Arizona Diamondbacks
    72. St. Louis Cardinals
    73. Tampa Bay Rays
    74. Pittsburgh Pirates
    75. Seattle Mariners


  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Note: The 36th pick for Miami just happens to fall into the Comp. Balance Round A, it is not eligible for trade.

    Rule: A team that fails to sign a second round pick gets virtually the identical pick the following season regardless of the round (for example, if Boston fails to sign pick #62, it will receive pick #62A (~63) in the next year's draft, regardless of whether pick #62A falls in the supplemental round, the second round, or the third round).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    nearest I can tell, John is saying the Cubs will expect the team trading for Shark to not only send players over in exchange for him, but also an extra player or comp pick to make up for the 2nd round pick the Cubs will lose to sign his replacement, ie Santana or Jimenez. IF that is what John is implying I don't buy it - no team is going to care what the Cubs do to replace Shark's rotation spot - the deal is package X for Samardzija, period.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    Right and if they send a competitive Balance round A pick to the Cubs as part of the package it wouldn't need to be PTBNL since the picks are known already, and two have already been traded as I listed above.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    I didn't understand that either, glad I wasn't the only one.

  • As the "Smardz saga" continues…I was thinking back to some of the Cubs previous drafts and how many good players they missed out on in those drafts.

    The 2010 draft comes to mind, so I did a little research.

    The Cubs' 1st round pick was none other than Hayden Simpson (#16) and 2nd round pick was Reggie Golden (#65). Here is a list of some interesting players that were taken after both of those picks:

    Aaron Sanchez (Blue Jays) (#34)
    Noah Syndergaard (Blue Jays) (#38)
    Taijuan Walker (Seattle) (#43)
    Nick Castellanos (Detroit) (#44)

    Reggie Golden (Cubs) (#65)

    Andrelton Simmons (Atlanta) (#70)
    Justin Nicolino (Blue Jays) (#80)
    Nick Kingham (Pirates) (#117)
    James Paxton (seattle) (#132)
    Sean Nolin (Blue Jays) (#186)

    I left off some lesser star prospects…but this kind of gives you the main point of all this. It's funny how many of those names are some of the names in play for Shark right now.

  • In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    Hayden Simpson was the worst first round draft selection the Cubs have made in my lifetime. It was incomprehensible the moment it was made. The guys on MLB Network were laughing on air.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    I'm going to be that guy again. The Hayden Simpson the Cubs drafted not stepped foot on a professional mound. He was a small school guy that I would imagine not more than one guy on the MLB network ever saw pitch in person. There were reports that late in his college career his mechanics and velocity increased and the Cubs believed he was a late riser.

    He got sick right after signing his first professional contract. Pretend he got hit by a bus, or was diagnosed with cancer. It would essentially be similar to what happened. The kid lost so much weight and he was never the same. When he finally did step back on a mound he couldn't hit 90 MPH. And then he hurt his arm.

    The Cubs FO was not given financial resources to commit to pay the elite talents so they were essentially rolling the dice on high risk players, just like Tyler Colvin a couple of years earlier he most scouts had seen and most had him rated as a 3rd or 4th round pick. Wilken was reaching for athletes with upside. And in the case of Simpson, he lost the athleticism before the ink was dry on his contract.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mjvz:

    Very good explanation, mjvz.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    Uhmmm, Ryan Harvey?

  • fb_avatar

    Scott Baker joins the Ms on a minor league deal. Here's wishing him well.

  • In reply to Ray:

    I thought Baker was a guy the Cubs would bring back. The Mariners deal looks like a value contract. He did well at the end of last season and with TJ surgery, the next year after the return is the better test as to velocity/strength. I think he will do well and the M's may have gotten a bargain.

  • In reply to All W Days:

    Yeah Cubs ended up paying Baker $5.5 Million for 3 starts late in the year. That's $1.83 Million per start. That's one deal that definitely didn't work out, so I thought maybe Baker would give the Cubs a sweetheart deal this year, but I guess not.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Thats Kershaw money......sort of....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to All W Days:


  • I'd rate Burnett's chances of signing with the Cubs at 0.

    Why would he want to come to a bottom feeder for nearly 4 months only to be shipped off to a place that he has no control of? What if he's traded to somewhere he doesn't want to go?

    It's not guaranteed to be some great contender either, what if the Blue Jays or Rockies are hovering near .500 and make a panic trade because they're in striking distance (which is pretty much every team) of that 2nd wildcard near the deadline

    What if he gets hurt or underperforms and is stuck in Chicago? Which is very possible for a player in his late 30's that's inching towards retirement.

    Wasn't Kevin Gregg supposed to get traded for sure last season? what happens if there's no market for him or the Cubs don't like the package and hold on to him, like Gregg?

    Too many if's. He's going to cut out the middle man and sign with a perceived 2014 contender from Day 1, if he doesn't retire.

    I don't subscribe to the Cubs getting him and flipping him for more prospects (yipee!) theory

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Best bet for Burnett is the Orioles.

  • Stand pat. I don't see anything out there that makes a lot of sense at thIs juncture.

  • I mentioned this in another post recently. Why wouldn't a trade with Texas not be on the table? With the injury of Holland and all the money Texas has spent this offseason it seems like they are really going for it this year and they desperately need a SP with Holland being out at least half of the year. I still like their farm. You would think there would be rumors about this.

  • fb_avatar

    Cubs avoid arbitration with Ruggiano. Samardzija and Barney left.

  • In reply to Ray:


  • Joel Sherman ‏@Joelsherman1

    #Cubs and Justin Ruggiano avoid arbitration. He gets $2M. Had asked fro $2.45M, Chi countered at $1.6M.

  • I would rather see the Cubs stand with what they have now going into ST - rather than sign some FA that would cost a future draft pick.

    A rotation of the following out of Spring Training:

    #1 Samardzija
    #2 Wood
    #3 Jackson (hopeflly closer to his usual stat line)
    #4 Arietta
    #5 (once the schedule gets regular enough that you can't go 4-man) from among Rusin/Grimm/Cabrera/Marshall or the Vet Villanueva,... let them sort it out among themselves.

    It's pretty much a given that unless you trade one of the top 3 - these guys are going to lead your rotation to start out.

    At some point - you got to find out what you have in Arietta, and among Rusin/Grimm/Cabrera/Marshall. You can always fall back to the known quantity that is Villaneava. Let's start out early and work through the options to fill out the rotation.

    Stand Pat - IMO

  • Holy cow - I am no longer interested in reading anything that has Jeff Samardzija's name on it unless he has signed an extension or been traded.

    This is bordering on being a damn soap opera. I understand he wants to make a bunch more money than the ~$18M he has booked already and the Cubs want to get a deal commiserate with his potential perf and risk, but this has stopped being interesting and is now just plain old. It is worse than old, its becoming a distraction and I wish it would get nipped in the bud. He is not more important than the long term goals and the Cubs had better make a decision on this as it is starting to smell like indecison more than "holding the line".

    I am tired and I wish we would just stop paying attention to it until it reaches its logical concclusion.

  • In reply to JK1969:

    In Shark's defense, he is not out there on the airwaves saying one thing or the other about his contract or what he wants the Cubs to do. In this day and age of the internet, blogs etc, sometimes this stuff comes up over and over again.

    So technically, if you have an issue on this, blame John for bringing it up with a blog post. (no offense John, just making a point).

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    No offense taken. Got some questions about Samardzija after rumors came out so I just addressed it on a relatively slow day. Some are interested but I realize that many are not. I'm ready for this saga to end as well.

  • In reply to JK1969:

    I'm with you. But remember, you don't have to read shark articles, do you. Change the channel if you don't like the topic.

  • In reply to Break The Curse:

    Actually not even a big fan of the saga or the rumors myself, but Levine and Heyman brought up the Blue Jays interest again. I'd rather they just sign him and have this over with.

  • In reply to Break The Curse:

    Fair comment about unplugging from this saga. I actually did not read the article that John posted (sorry John). I just saw the headline and had a visceral reaction to the whoe damn thing.

    I wanted to say my piece, and now that I have had an opportunity to air my POV, I will stay mum on the subject.

  • hmm.
    I am wondering if the Cubs could trade some of their IFA signing slots directly for one of the competitive draft picks. They probably can't use all of their 2014 slots anyway, so might as well trade some, right?
    Even so, I not a big fan of signing Santana or Jimenez, but if they did and could recoup a draft pick that would be nice.

  • I'm all for trading Samardzija and Wood. I'm under the impression Wood won't duplicate his #2 type numbers. He's cheap and controlled for a couple more years. They'll be interest. I never really envisioned Wood on the future playoff teams anyway. Get something for him while his stock is at the highest.

    I'm not even worried about replacing production. Let all the sink or swim candidates well sink or swim. We'll weed out the bad guys and hopefully a couple guys can stick. Worse case...hello #1 pick.

    We're probably going to be bad this upcoming season anyway. I'm down for a punt on 1st down.

    The Arroyo's of the world never interested me. He's not going to be here when the Cubs are good, he serves no purpose unless he's good enough to flip and he blocks one of our fringe starters who I want to see out there every 5th day to see what they got.

    1. Jackson
    2. Arrieta
    3. Grimm
    4. Rusin
    5. Cabrera

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    I don't disagree on selling high on Wood. I think he's still a mid-rotation starter. But more of a back-end type on a good team.
    And I really want Cabrera to win a spot in the rotation.
    I'm also somewhat optimistic about Grimm, too.
    But those options would be better suited after the trade deadline.
    I'd rather not let these kids arrive to a piss-poor, miserable big league squad. These guys need role models. Trading either Wood or Samardzija really sets us back, unless the value is high-end AA-AAA level talent.

    I'm all for using 2014 as another opportunity to acquire pitching prospects. Trade Nate, Veras, Ruggiano, Wright, Russell. Hell, maybe even Castro, Olt or Villanueva.
    But as far as I'm concerned, once Baez and Bryant are slugging in the middle of that lineup, it's time to start making moves like we're going to win some games. And that really starts in 2015.
    Samardzija signing an extension would be best. Unless Arizona throws Bradley out there.

  • fb_avatar

    Majority of fan base will revolt with that revolting rotation. Wrigley will be half empty, it could get really ugly.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    I'll still go!

Leave a comment