Advertisement:

Trade Rumor Thread: Hug Jason Hammel while you still can...

Trade Rumor Thread: Hug Jason Hammel while you still can...

An annoying lack of rumors yesterday meant no Trade Rumor Thread. Not sure if everyone was distracted by the July 2 IFA signings, but I prefer to think that it means that teams were all deep in discussions over trades that are happening today.

3:00 PM (Mike)

  • Gordon Wittenmyer has a source who sees things differently than Hoyer.  Wittenmyer's source feels that teams will jump to get the extra four to five starts from Hammel.  This is more important than it may seem because Jon Lester -- who may or may not be on the market -- competes most directly with Hammel in the trade market.  Having Hammel traded by the time the Red Sox decide what to do with Lester would be ideal for the Cubs.

 

1:50 PM (John):

  • The Cubs have 3 more IFA signings: LHP Wander Cabrera, who had been connected with the Cubs  from the start.  He is a 6'2", 190 lbs 16 year old with arm strength but not much else right now except for projectability.  They also signed ($100K) 3B Tony Rijo, a 6'1" #B who BA describes as having "quick hands, a line drive stroke, and occasional power".  There are already questions about whether he can stay at 3B and may have to move to a corner OF position in time.  They also signed SS Yellier Peguero who as the athleticism and skill to stay at SS or at least 2B.  He is a switch-hitter with a line drive stroke and above average speed. Cabrera and Peguero signed for the Cubs full $250,00 they are allowed.  All players are from the Dominican Republic.

 

  • A fortnight that has seen three starters go down (Wacha, Miller, and Garcia) lead the Cardinals to an uncharacteristic 6-8 record as they tread water 5 1/2 games behind the Brewers.  The Cardinals offense is sputtering as their 309 runs scored ranks dead last the the NL Central and ahead of only the woeful Padres in the NL.  They have been winning on pitching and, to have a chance this year, they need to add a starter who will eat up innings as well give his team a chance to win every time out.  Realistically, that gives them two options.  David Price and Jeff Samardzija, in that order.  The Cardinals may be thinking along those lines because, according to Jim Duquette on MLBNR (h/t to long time Denizen Mike Caldwell), they have called the Cubs to inquire on Jeff Samardzija.  Obviously, an "inquiry" is a long way from an actual trade.  However, with the prospect cost for David Price rumored to be high (see the Heyman piece below), Samardzija might be their best option if they choose to go for it this year.  The downside is that trading Samardzija to the Cardinals leaves him in the hands of our bitter rivals for the next year and a half.  The upside, however, is that the Cubs would be able to demand a premium for trading him within the division. (Mike)
  • As mentioned in the previous bullet, the reason the Cardinals may opt to go with Samardzija instead of Price is because of the prospect cost the Rays are attaching to the former Cy Young winner.  Jon Heyman of CBS Sports reports that the Rays want "most of" the Dodgers elite prospects in a deal for Price.  Heyman speculates, reasonably, that this means any deal for Price would include two OF Joc Pederson, SS Corey Seager, and LHP Julio Urias.  When prospects are re-ranked at the end of the season, all 3 are likely to be top 50 prospects.  It seems like a lot.  Not because Price isn't worth it -- he is -- but because starting pitching is so far down the Dodgers list of concerns.  However, such a deal would be great news for the Cubs because it sets a high bar for premium pitching.  Even if the Cubs don't get as much for Samardzija (they shouldn't), they'll could still argue for two Top 50 guys, which I don't think anyone would complain about. (Mike)
  • After last season's international free agent spending spree, the Cubs are not allowed to sign any player for more than $250,000 this year and are not attached to any of the top rated IFAs this year. However, according to Scout.com's Kiley McDaniel the Cubs have signed their first player from the July 2 class, Panamanian shortstop Francisco Garay. The terms of the deal have not been announced, though obviously it will be for less than $250K, and he does not appear on any of the major prospect lists for this class. (Dan)
  • Despite speculation that the Cubs could look to make a deal involving one or more of their IFA slots and Jason Hammel's next start corresponding to the anniversary of the Scott Feldman trade, GM Jed Hoyer tells Mark Gonzalez of the Chicago Tribune that the Cubs may not make an early trade this year. "People get a lot more serious with each day that gets closer to the deadline. It probably works both ways. I don't think you ever go into July thinking you're going to make deals early, but sometimes it can come together.'' (Dan)
  • There is skepticism about the Royals ability to add payroll for a playoff run.  The significance here is that, if Dayton Moore really is at the end of his payroll rope, trading for Jeff Samardzija becomes difficult but trading for David Price is all but impossible.  This could work to the Cubs advantage in two ways.  The most obvious is this could increase the Royals demand for the cheaper Jason Hammel significantly.  Secondly, unlike the Rays, the Cubs are in position to include some money in the Samardzija deal to help make it work for the Royals. (Mike)
  • Following the Cubs sweep of the Red Sox, the two teams have virtually the same winning percentage. Buster Olney checks in again (Insider required) on the Red Sox's contract extension talks with Jon Lester and speculates that it may be too late for the two sides to come to agreement. Olney references the Homer Bailey extension as shifting Lester's value much as it did for Samardzija's. This leads to the obvious question of will the Red Sox look to trade Lester if no agreement can be reached? With Lester's obvious connections to the Cubs' FO and the team's need for starting pitching, there will likely be discussions if and when Lester reaches free agency. A mid-season trade of Lester would remove the possibility of the Qualifying Offer which would likely raise both Lester's price tag and the Cubs interest in signing him. (Dan)

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Older player than normal July 2nd signings (from Wikipedia):

    Francisco de Garay (died 1523) was a Spanish Basque conquistador. He was a companion to Christopher Columbus on his second voyage to the New World and arrived in Hispaniola in 1493.Here he attracted attention when he encountered a large gold nugget worth four thousand pesos.

  • In reply to springs:

    Well at least his older age will put him on the fast track.

  • In reply to springs:

    He'll have to be moved from SS to backstop.

  • fb_avatar

    I wouldn't like to see the Cubs help the Cardinals try to win.

  • In reply to Ray:

    What difference does it matter the Cubs aren't going to win.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KGallo:

    We don't know that the Cubs aren't going to win.

  • In reply to Ray:

    So what does it matter if the Cardinals win. If the Cubs can get players that will help crush the Cardinals for the next 5 to 6 years. It's a win 8 my eyes.

  • In reply to Ray:

    They arent this year so why not make the trade especially for what the price will be for a divison team

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ray:

    The premium required to move him within the division should make Cubs fans very, very happy.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Agreed,.... although,.... somehow,.... you just 'know' that Shark would blossom into a Cy Young candidate in StL,...

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    Yes - my cynical side is showing through.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    They going to give us Brock back?

  • In reply to xhooper:

    Maybe Lou Kaminsky & Oscar Brockveras

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Do you think the Cubs premium price for shark would still be significantly lower than the Rays out of division price? I think sharks price is slightly inflated due to the fact that the AL East is in play, where Price would come at a premium there.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KC Cubs Fan:

    I do. Friedman drives a hard bargain in these trades.

  • In reply to Ray:

    I understand that but the Cubs would be trading a pitcher that the Cards may not be able to resign in 2 years for a little bit more than it would cost teams not in their divison to aquire. If the Cubs are still saying 4 players and your talking atleast 2 pitchers in a Shark deal with the way the Cards have drafted some interesting arms become avaliable

  • In reply to Ray:

    Who cares if the Cubs "help" the Cards try to win THIS YEAR? The Cards would be "helping" the Cubs win for the next 5-10 years in whatever they'd have to give up. Which is why I find it highly unlikely they'll trade for either Cubs pitcher. Is weird as it sounds, I think Hammel is even less likely as a trade target of the Cards. I can't imagine they'd want to give the Cubs anything at all for half a season of a guy.

    Anyway, the Cubs aren't going to win this year, and I doubt the Cards will either. But if they want to make themselves a bit weaker in the future while strengthening the Cubs in the future all for a chance at a season that means zilch for the Cubs, I say why not?

  • In reply to Ray:

    I would argue that the Cardinals are significantly more than one pitcher away from contending for a World Series this year. If the Cubs could turn Samardzija into a package of prospects close to the one mentioned for Price above, I would do it in a heartbeat. If the Cardinals want to mortgage a significant part of their future on this year's team, do not stand in their way. Chances are that the Cardinals will not want to meet the Cubs' asking price on Samardzija. However, if they would meet this price, buy all means send Samardzija to Cardinals if it is in the best long term interests of the Cubs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ray:

    Long as the trade involved Taveras ( a left handed power hitting out fielder ) and Carlos Martinez to start......I will help Samardija pack and so should every other real cub fan

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    I would love that deal + a few more Cards prospects to the Rays. Getting rid of Martinez and Taveras for a year and a half of Price would be good by me. It would also raise the price of Shark.

  • fb_avatar

    Bernstein alluded to some rooftop news?...

  • In reply to SKMD:

    Trib has an article up. Rooftops won't sue if Cubs go back to original plan of one video board and one new sign.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Thanks, I usually ignore the trib since I found cubs-den. Might be a good idea to take that, put up the jumbotron and use its revenue for the next 9 years, let the contract expire and then go whole hog with your signs in 2024. Unless the cubs believe this is the first sign of the rooftops caving entirely.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Saw that coming. That was the plan all along.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Hey I think they just realized that they have no leverage. Ricketts, go for what you want.

  • In reply to John57:

    Exactly. The RTO's overplayed their hand big time, and now they are going to wish they hadn't. Too Late. If the Cubs organization decides to negotiate with them, then they won't even get the original deal that the Cubs offered anymore...that ship has sailed....now that they are getting killed in the court of public opinion, and will no doubt lose in actual court they will be luck to get any significant reductions in the plan at this point.

  • If it helps the Cardinals win this year, it helps the Cubs next year and the year after. If the Cards give the best return, go for it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to wastrel:

    The issue here, and the Cubs will make it an even bigger issue than it is in any trade talks, is that Samardzija also helps the Cardinals win NEXT year when the Cubs will be trying to push for the wild card.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Just my opinion, but I don't think they'll care. In fact, I think they'd prefer to do a deal with the Cards, all things equal.

    This front office repeatedly has hammered at the goal being building a sustainable contender over time. If that's the case, then you'd have to think they see value decreasing the chances of an intra-division rival having a sustainable contender over time. I don't think they'll put too much weight on just next year, I think they're looking down the road and would love to knock the Cards down a couple of pegs for those long term years.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I like your thinking on this. Help us long term, hurt the top dog down the road...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Look, if it isn't samardzija, knowing the cards they'll pull some guy off the street next year and he'll go 16-4 with a 2.98. They'll find a way to compete - withholding samardzija isn't going to stand in their way. So might as well pick off some of their farm crop.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    So you go out and you beat Samardzija.

  • The Cardinals would be absolute fools to pay for Shark.

    The package is obviously going to be a hefty one and they'd be giving bullets to the Cubs (who are almost ready to unleash their waves) while making themselves weaker for the future.

    This isn't a franchise that needs to make a knee jerk move to appease fans or to get a title they desperately need especially because they have 2 titles in the past 10 years so they have leeway with fans.

    I don't see any way possible St. Louis does it. They're too smart of an organization. That's a move that the Cubs would love to do that makes very little to no sense for the Cardinals.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Or, what Jimmie said.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    The Cubs are asking a ton from the Cards from what I understand. If they make a trade with the Cubs, they will have to bite the bullet, I'd be surprised if it happens to be honest.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Sooooooo...what are they asking for? =).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jweav14:

    As he said, a ton of prospects. That is exactly 2000 pounds of prospects. For a while they were afraid they couldn't do it exactly and an org guy was going to have his foot chopped off, but they've worked around that unfortunate eventuality.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    So if that's how trades are being worked out then we want VOGELBOMB to put the freshman 30 back on and next off season we need to sign Andre the Giant (better known as Bartolo Colon) to a Hammel Feldman one year deal. Too late to trade Barry foote or George Mitterwald? There's a topic. Heaviest all time cubs team

  • fb_avatar

    My head is starting to spin over here at the Den. Funny how fickle fans can be. For the past two seasons we've heard the masses ask the question, "why can't we win at the major league level while we wait for the kids to develop?"

    Now we are starting to hear fans cry out, "lose baby lose cause we need a higher draft choice." Didn't we also hear fans say that you can't count on prospects to ever make an impact on the major league roster? How can this FO win if they make moves based on the fans? Good thing Theo and company refuse to cater to every whim of the fans.

    Which leads me to ask, how do you tell kids currently on the major league roster to lose so that we can get a better draft choice next year? And don't worry we'll just turn on the switch when it's time to win.

    The debate I just read about whether Bryant should be brought up in September this year, the start of next year or after June of next year is interesting read but really just gives us an idea of how fickle fans can be.

    If we are to trust in Theo then he has said over and over that if and when the money is needed to sign a player is needed it will be there. He has also said how the timing of the baseball side and the business side of this organization is coming together.

    Now we are starting to see some of these guys gain confidence and win a few ball games. FANTASTIC! Been a long time since we saw any glimpse of quality baseball here. So here's an idea, bring in the first wave of talent when they are ready. Yes when they are ready and not when it might be fiscally right.

    Our damn payroll is so low as it is and we are supposed to be out of this debt crisis in 2019. So now you want me to worry about a possible Free Agent problem of Bryant and Baez in 2021? Sorry but I gave at the office already.

    Let's get to the playoffs as soon as possible. Because you can't win a championship unless you make the playoffs first. And if you make the playoffs, anything can happen.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    You're not telling the team to lose on purpose but there are ways to lose.

    Hey Darwin...you're hitting 2nd everyday.

    Chris Rusin...taking the mound every 5th day.

    Hmm...let's see if Jackson can pitch himself out of this jam.

    There's no glory in the 11th draft pick-whatever pick it is where you miss the playoffs. That's the worst place to be. The Cubs are right in the 11th pick range.

    They aren't making the playoffs this year. You can't half-ass being a bad team. There's a big incentive to be bad if miss the playoffs and it's not only with the position of the pick, it's being in the top 10 so you can keep that pick if you sign a player who declines a QO.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    I firmly believe that since the Cubs are talking about spending this offseason they will try an get a comp pick in a trade by the trade deadline. That way if they do sign a player with a QO they have gotten a pick back kinda in place of it

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Love the "Lets see if Jackson can pitch himself out of this jam."
    We all need to have a sense of humor while waiting for the arrival of the core four or fabulous five or sexy six - or whatever.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    I thought the Cubs payroll was in the mid 90s million. Isn't that like middle of the pack? I would not call it low, I would call it average.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John57:

    I'd call it average for a small to mid market team. Last time I looked Chicago was still one of the largest cities in the United States. Unless of course you are a White Sox fan and then you still must cry that you play in a "small" market atmosphere.....

    Also, wasn't all this dark debt cloud supposed to be evapoarted in 2019. So those worries about Byrant and Baez going to free agency in 2021 should be addressed in........ 2015?

    Just say'n

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Well Ray, in the comment below, said Cot's puts the Cub payroll at just under 93 million for 2014. The revenue the Cubs make this year was in the middle of the pack also. It it irrelevant how big the market is. You can't spend market size. You can only spend your revenue. Now in the future they are trying to get the revenue up so they can sustain a higher payroll but they are not where they want to be revenue/payroll wise yet. Just say'n.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John57:

    Cot's puts the Cub payroll at just under 93 million, 2nd lowest in their division to the Pirates.

  • In reply to Ray:

    Cot's does some funny accounting, e.g. EJax is being paid $11mm this year, but Cot's spread his "signing bonus" over the life of the contract bumping it to $13mm. They do a great job of keeping track though.

  • In reply to John57:

    The Cubs payroll isn't 90. The payroll "on the field" is closer to 60. Maybe even less. Even counting Soriano, Soler, that Japanese pitcher that's been DL'ed, etc, I'm pretty sure it's in the high 70's.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    No one counts "on the field" payroll. They have a payroll in the 90 to 100 million range. That is what they are paying.

  • In reply to John57:

    Um. I do. And decided not to renew my season tix because of it. I understand perfectly well that the published cash player cost is $90mm this year. But I don't much care about $30mm worth of players that aren't on the active roster. Just because USA today or Cots presents a number for each team doesn't it make it useful or even relevant. Just a basis for comparison. And as to "that's what they're paying" they are paying a lot more than that. Why count Soler and Concepcion? Just because the signed "major league" contracts. Doesn't actually make any sense. Esp given not counting others that are on the 40 man but (also) without service time. So anyway, I find an "on the field payroll" to be much more useful.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    OK one person counts "on the field" payroll. And you are entirely within your rights to cancel your season tix if you are not happy with the size of the payroll.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John57:

    Cubs payroll is a joke when comparing it to other large market team.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    But the other large market teams don't have the debt the cubs have to pay off

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Houston is a large market team. Their payroll last year was 18 million for the whole team. I would call that a low payroll. the Cubs are between 90 and 100 million. It mirrors their revenue.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Cubs total revenue a joke compared to other large market teams. The Yankees have three times the revenue that the Cubs have.

    Because of Wrigley Field and the TV contracts they have to deal with, and the restrictions due to the RoofTop contract and stemming from Landmark status, the Cubs have a total revenue of a small market team.

  • In reply to John57:

    $14 million of that $93 is paying for Soriano to play for the Yankees. 5 million is being paid for Fujikawa who has played less than 10 innings in the last two seasons. The actual active roster cost is about $74 million this year.

  • In reply to Northside Neuman:

    It does not matter how much the active roster costs. That is irrelevant. What matters is how much they are paying for everything. The actual playing roster, players they traded but still paying part of their salary, ie Soriano, hurt players, ie Fujikawa, Soler who has a ML contract. It is money they have to spend. It is not imaginary money. It is real money.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    amen, boca. I totally agree and i think the FO does as well.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    I, for one, have never pulled for the Cubs to lose -- never ever. I hate it when they lose. That's why I've hated this "White Flag Rebuild."

    We've sucked long enough. We got Bryant, so that was great. But enough of the White Flag. And that's why I am totally against any sell off this year and am in favor of calling guys up when they're ready, regardless of losing a year or 6 months of control.

    BTW, it seems we could have gotten Shwarber at 15 or 16 or maybe even lower in the draft. And, also, take a look at the guys with the highest WARs today. Plenty of them, maybe even large majority, were not drafted in top ten. Oh, so we lose a protected pick. So be it. Let's win some baseball games!

    Finally, as I've said here before, I love the Cubs and it hurts and I hate it when they lose. Hate it. So I see these guys busting there butt to win now and they play .500 ball for the last two months and, by golly, I just want to see them get some help. The time to start (continue?) winning is now!

    And, finally, as much as I hate it when the Cubs lose, I hate it almost just as much as when the Cardinals win. Do not do anything to help the Cardinals. Do a deal with anyone but the Cardinals. Because: *%^&$# the Cardinals!

  • In reply to TTP:

    It's not about getting Schwarber at 15/16, it's also the slot money to get better players later.

    You get the most bang for the buck at the top of the draft. There's data that shows the farther you get away from the top, the less chance you have of getting an impact player.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TTP:

    I love your point of these guys busting their butt just to get to .500 ball. It just shows that we need help. So I guess that means we should lose so we can get a better draft choice. That way the guy we draft should help in 3 years.....

    Oh wait, Vitters was tone of the best choices the Cubs made in 2007 according to just about every analyst. And he's helping the Cubs by keeping a spot on the 40 man roster warm.....

    Point is, if it's true that each season is precious and we have a chance to fill in gaps with our home grown guys, why wait until mid 2015 to bring up a guy like Bryant or Baez. Is it just a money situation? So then you are asking me to throw away a whole season to worry about a possible financial situation 7 years from now. I guess there must not be any way to plan for financial rainy days of the future.....

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Every time you root for Kris Bryant remember that it was only possible for that to happen because the Cubs had a landfill of a team taking the field.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Theo did what he had to do with the tools he was given. Period.

    But the tools that he used over the last two season are now not effective as the new tools being given to him. So it's time to build that house.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    but also remember that it was the FO that took him instead of the pitching they so badly needed in the system

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    Because no one who actually matters think either of them are ready.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    Would statement be true if the Cubs were currently in the playoff picture? And another question would be if Bryant and/or Baez were brought up in April of next year would the chances of the Cubs making the playoffs that much better than the let's wait and see how things pan out?

    I'd much rather debate these questions than let's worry if the Cubs could afford thee guys in 2021 or not....... Just a different perspective I guess....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    yeah, I don't think this FO is the type to make knee-jerk moves.

    I'm not saying that super-2 status has nothing to do with it, per se, but I don't think holding back a prospect or two for 2-3 months really makes that big of a difference in the big picture.

    If you depend on one player (who has never been on the team before) to save your season or your playoff chances, then I don't think your season or your playoff chances were that good to begin with. It's desperation, and it rarely leads to actual help.

    Pirates fans freaked the hell out that Polanco was being held back. Their season isn't ruined and their playoff chances are very much alive.

    I really think the FO is thinking more about the message they are sending about how, when, and why prospects are being promoted.

    I think a lot of people need to slow down, be patient and accept that even IF we did promote these kids, there is a very real chance they could struggle and be quite bad.
    People keep panicking about the playoffs but there are holes all over this team and zero evidence to support the assumption that two or three prospects will save it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    I wonder if the Nationals think the same thing after they shut down Strasburg? I think you can bet your sweet ash that 2-3 months make a difference in a season. Your bigger picture speaks of the service time for these guys were talking about.

    So your saying that this FO has no clue to plan for an event that could happen 7 years from now so we better hold them back so such a tough decision doesn't need to be made until the 8th year?

    So these guys were smart enough to get is to a competitive position with players we now have but are totally clueless about what will be in 7 or 8 years from now.

    I am not on board with that. In fact, I seem to remember that Theo talked of waves of talent. Not a single tsunami of talent and then we can all sit back and enjoy ourselves.

    I bet a lot of these guys we are talking about won't even be wearing a Cubs uniform in 7 or 8 years. That's right. This isn't the 1960's any more where a guy plays for one team his entire career. This is a whole new game and the sooner we accept the fact that this is just the way it is the better off we will be when guys get injured, traded, etc.

    Those "waves" are what we need to look for not one or two guys to be cemented into the lineup for the next 20 years. Didn't Theo trade Nomar at the height of his popularity in Boston?

    Hmmmmm, surf's up dude......

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    I think you're focusing way WAY too much on the "7 years from now" thing. I'm not thinking about that at all really.

    By big picture, I meant that this year and arguably next year means very little.
    Rushing prospects who aren't ready can be pretty detrimental and when you're talking about a system that has 3 guys in the top 15, that's huge.
    Looking at Bryant's play, he will probably be a top 2-3 prospect at the start of next year. Javy is still top 5. Why would you risk their development for a bad team.
    Javy is CLEARLY not ready and Bryant has flaws that people think are okay to ignore cause he can crush it.

    And yes, of course there are waves and waves coming. The system is ridiculous now and we haven't even made a single trade yet this year. The issue is that the first wave hasn't even really hit yet. Arrieta and Ramirez and Grimm aren't even wave 1.

    Really, seriously. 7 years is not a focus. Now is.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    You wait until 2015 to bring up Bryant or Baez because IT'S BEST FOR BRYANT OR BAEZ. No other reason. There is no logical reason to bring them up in 2014, other than (maybe) a cup of coffee in September, if Iowa's playoff run is concluded.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    And it still wouldn't make sense for the Cubs as they would then take up 40 man spots. I get AA and Soler coming up after any playoff run or earlier because they are already on 40 man but with a team that has a FO like the cubs that loves to play with the 40 man it doesn't make any sense

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cliff1969:

    I'm fine if it's September of this year or next Spring or the Summer after that. I just find fault with folks that say we hold them back due to financial restrictions. If a guy like Bryant has done everything you asked of him, you promote him. Service clock be damned.

    Guys get promoted when they are ready, period. That's what I am saying. No restrictions to this very simple concept.....

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    I agree being a big market the cubs don't need to and I don't think they will play service game in that regards

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    RE: "Guys get promoted when they are ready, period.:

    Wrong. That is almost NEVER the case. On good teams, many times prospects that are ready are not brought up even when they are ready because their is no spot for them. Even on mediocre teams it is common for a prospect that is ready to not be brought up the moment he is ready (which is very subjective anyways) if their is a player at his position on the MLB team taking his spot.

    Whether you want to believe it or not, a prospects promotion to majors almost always is based on multiple factors including being "ready", but also number of minor league options remaining, cost control time (arbitration/super-two), position availability at the MLB level, available playing time, player control (time to free agency), among other things... Thankfully GM's don't think like you, as they are responsible for constructing an entire team which includes balancing player salaries and roster composition... so when it comes to organizational/player decisions that have short, medium, and long term consequences they consider important factors beyond just simple recent player production.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    But the Cubs are not a "good" team. So my "rule" stands.... Everything else is just playinh into the arguement that the Cubs should wait.....wait......wait......

    wait for what? If the guy is ready you promote him......

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    There's more to it than just being "ready," but at this point B & B don't help the Cubs this year and it doesn't help THEM to bring them up. I agree that if a player is in the "just a little more seasoning" mode and could help the MLB club make a playoff push, it might be better for the team than holding him back for service time restrictions, but that's a bridge to argue across when we get there...

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    Don't be silly. If you wait for 2015 to bring up Bryant of Baez, it is because it is best for the Cubs. No other reason.

    What is best for Bryant or Baez is, in most cases, also what is best for the Cubs. But if bringing them up in a year when they can be of little help as far getting into the World Series means that might lose them in a year where they CAN be of help in getting to the World Series, then we don't bring them up.

    I wish the Cubs Front Office had done a little more long term planning in 2007. If they had, perhaps we would be a contending team right now.

  • In reply to TTP:

    We could have gotten Schwarber at the 15th or 16th pick? Probably, but then we would only have had the slot money for the 15th or 16th pick, and could not have signed the later overslot picks.

    Why would you keep Samardzija for a year and a half, and then get a second round pick when he leaves? And why keep Hammel for the rest of the year and get a second rounder for him. We are NOT going to win this year, and even if we squeak out a wild card spot next year (not a likely scenario, even with Samardzija on the team) what happens the following year when Samardzija and Hammel are gone and we have received nothing in trade to replace him.

    We haven't made any white flag trades. We have not even been the battle, so there was nothing to surrender.

  • In reply to TTP:

    "it seems we could have gotten Shwarber at 15 or 16 or maybe even lower..."

    That's easy to say in theory but not practical because it's not possible to trade drafts picks in the MLB draft. If they really wanted him they had to take him with the #4 overall pick. He would not have lasted until their next pick in round 2. Plus, by signing Schwarber to a significantly underslot deal it allowed the Cubs to draft several overslot guys later, which is akin to moving down in the draft.

  • In reply to Boogens:

    Also the mock draft done by John Heyman of CBS sports had Schwarber going #4 to the Cubs.

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24580634/mlb-mock-draft-astros-skip-rodon-at-no-1-in-deeper-than-expected-draft

    Schwarber was rising as the draft neared. The Cubs were not the only ones seeing this. No way he would have lasted until the 15th or 16 pick.

  • In reply to Boogens:

    "by signing Schwarber to a significantly underslot deal it allowed the Cubs to draft several overslot guys later, which is akin to moving down in the draft"

    excellent point.

  • In reply to Boogens:

    People seem to equate where the so-called experts "rank" players, not how teams rank them.

    If there actually was the ability to trade draft picks in the MLB draft, you can be assured that the Cubs would have lost the extra money from having the #4 slot money as opposed to #15 or #16, assuming a successful trade back. And then there goes all the overslots.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    I agree. My own opinion as I read all the comments is that most of the "experts" here (and they truly are knowledgeable) have almost convinced themselves that they are quasi-GM's, and they are voicing what they would do if they were running the team. Fine, it's a free country, they are allowed to do that. As a fan who has a real job and cannot spend the time necessary to be as informed, I just want the team to win asap. If it costs the Cubs a little more $ down the road, so what? None of us are footing the bill. Put the best players on the field when they are ready. Let the REAL GM/FO worry about the financial side of things.

  • In reply to nilrem:

    Well the real gm probably doesn't bring up Bryant/Baez till next June.. fyi

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    And real GM is going to trade away the two best pitchers at the deadline. He's not in the win now mode that some people want to be.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. Sure I'd like to win now, but I am not totally unrealistic enough to think that is possible. I support "selling" when it makes sense. I just don't want a MLB ready player to be in Iowa when they are truly ready. When is that? If I knew that maybe I'd have a job with the Cubs....as would you if you knew.

  • In reply to nilrem:

    I don't think I'm an aspiring GM because I understand that they're going to sell this month.

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    I don't disagree with that as it appears to me (thanks to posters here who follow their progress more closely than I) that they won't be ready till then anyway. My belief is simply to call them up when ready. I'd rather have them in Chicago producing (when ready) as opposed to them being in Iowa (when ready).

  • In reply to nilrem:

    It's not a "little bit of money". Bryant could be making upwards of $30 million a year when he hits FA in 2021. Pushing that date back a year could be the difference in signing or trading for a front line starter In a pennant race. Payroll flexibility is as important to teams as drafting solid prospects.

  • In reply to Northside Neuman:

    He wont be making anywhere near that much

  • In reply to nkniacc13:

    Famous last words. We are talking about 7 years in the future and a player who is projected to be the premier power hitter in the National League. What do you mean he won't be paid that much? Pujols got a $25 million dollar per year contract 3 years ago when he was 32 years old, you don't think some team won't offer a 29 year old Bryant a deal that exceeds that 7 years from now if he hits his ceiling? You're being naive.

  • In reply to Northside Neuman:

    no im not you said 30 million. I agree that around 25 million could be attainable but unless the DH comes into the NL I don't see 30 million

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to nkniacc13:

    He said Pujols got 25. And he was, what, 32 years old when he signed that?

    The way salaries escalate in baseball, I would say that Bryant, who could conceivably be 28 or 29 when he hits free agency, would easily get 30 million if he reaches his potential.

    Think about how Mike Trout, Harper, Cutch and others signing extensions will alter the market.

    6-7 years in the future is a crazy long period of time. to think that a guy with Bryant's ceiling can't get 5 million more per year than an aging 1B/DH is crazy.

  • Yeah we have IFA signings

  • fb_avatar

    Selig has granted the A's permission to leave Oakland. Will it effect the Cubs? Yes, I believe if the A's relocate to San Antonio. Maybe the Astros move back the NL Central or San Antonio would stay in the NL West with an NL West team moving to the AL. Stay tuned.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    A's have already signed on for another 10 years at the Coliseum.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    not a done deal yet - the city council meeting to approve that deal was canceled due to a lack of quorum

  • In reply to SKMD:

    Great news. One of my best friends manages special events over at O.co. If they moved, the entire place could be in jeopardy.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    why would the Astros move or have teams switch? You would have 3 teams in the west didison in texas so what

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to nkniacc13:

    Don't have to worry about that now apparently.

  • fb_avatar

    I've said it once before and I'll say it again. Shark to the Indians. We get a MLB ready starter in Bauer, an LH CF in Naquin, and a MLB ready 2b in Jose Ramirez just in case the FO is not sure about Baez or where he'll play.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    I don't think that makes sense for them. Even with Shark they aren't contenders to win the division.

    Most likely scenario is giving up long term pieces and missing the playoffs.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    An unimpressive pitcher with rumors of makeup issues? Yeah, no thanks. I'm not even sure I'd be happy getting him as a headliner in a Hammel trade....

    In a Shark trade, the discussion at least begins with Clint Frazier, if not Lindor. And I'd think it would have to include Bauer as a second piece (in one headlined by Frazier), not the headliner.

  • fb_avatar

    Who said anything about them winning the division? Right they're focused on the wildcard. They have a fanbase problem and they signed players, like Swisher and Bourn, to big deals. If they going for it, and Shark would make a wildcard contender, then no time better than the present.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    Yeah, they're mid market and a team built around winning now with just a handful of long term pieces. If they were ever going to go for it, which I still doubt they would do because it's not their MO, this would be the time. I'd want more pitching than you're suggesting though. Start with Bauer+Anderson, then maybe throw in a low A flier on an athletic guy like McClure. Or try to pry Naquin with the two pitchers. But in general I like where you're going with the Indians.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    They're a team built around winning now, that's not winning now.

    The GM would be vetoed by someone if he tried to get Shark.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Only 5.5 games out right now. If they rattle off a 6-1 week pretty soon and close it to 2 games, you could argue that an owner might push a move like that.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    I said about winning the division. They aren't going to sabotage their future for the chance to compete with 5 other teams for a 1 game playoff to even get to the playoffs. The risk is far too much.

    That's another one of those deals that make sense for the Cubs and not for the other team. The Indians aren't in on Shark.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    And I said about winning the wildcard. They should be in on him. Paul Hoynes, beat writer for the Indians, also agrees in his recent article in the Cleveland Plain dealer. http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2014/06/post_236.html

    He feels they don't have the pieces. I think they do.
    They aren't sabotaging anything by going for a wildcard. They need to win back the fanbase. That's not a risk, it a strategic PR move, especially when you've hired Francona.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    Getting Shark isn't going to win back the fan base. It's going to further hurt it in future years when they don't have the players they gave up for him.

    Even with him what's the odds they win a wildcard spot AND win the play-in game? 15% at most? What percent would you put on it?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    You act as though it's August. It's only July 3, Jimmie. Who said anything about winning back the fanbase with Shark. So, Santana, Kluber, Chinsenhall, Bourn, Brantley, Swisher, Cabrera, and Kipnis do have a say in that. I think you're taking my statements too much in the literal here. And again it's only July 3--plenty of time for the Indians to make up ground in the wildcard. You realize the same also can be said with your percentage statement of the Mariners and Orioles, right? You know, those other trade partners for Shark.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    Ok...So what percentage would you put on all of that stuff happening?

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    It's not so much about the percent of that happening as much as their opinion of how much Shark would improve that percentage.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    If we're now taking into account their opinion then it's not happening because there isn't any rumors connecting them to Shark.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    Because the public isn't privy to it means there are no talks at all? I disagree sir.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Same as the percentages for every team that makes a wildcard tie-breaker game. Strange question.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    And as far as rumors go, you realize that a larger percentage, probably on the estimate of 80-85% aren't factually correct, anyway? Right, Jimmie.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    You didn't understand the question. Read it again...

    And the funny thing is there are no rumors of him going to Cleveland. So your made up percentage can't even be quantified when there's no rumors to begin with.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    Apparently, Jimmie, you don't understand how these things work. Rumors are just that, rumors. Secondly, who cares what percentage increases Cleveland's odds if it comes down to the same percentage that they'd have as the other teams competing for the wildcard. I don't need to read your question because it doesn't make sense in the first place. As for getting Shark, every teams percentage of getting to the playoffs goes up...don't know why it'd be any different for the Indians.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    If they are gonna trade for spell check. Cleveland would want to be able to re sign spell check to a long-term deal. I doubt the Indians make a move.. they don't want to trade for him.. give up prospects and see him walk

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubfanInUT:

    That's just not a smart statement, there. What you're saying pertains to everyone trading for him.

  • A couple points worth noting... besides the 4 bonus slots that the Cubs have for IFA every team gets an additional $700,000...so even if the Cubs trade all 4 slots they can still use 700k to sign players.

    Example: Astros bounus slots are:
    1. $3,300,900
    2. $476,300
    3. $321,600
    4. $216,600
    For a Total of: $4,315,400 - but with the additional $700,000 their full bonus pool is $5,015,400

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/2014-15-mlb-international-bonus-pools-and-slot-values/

    http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/viva-el-birdos-knowledge-nest/2014/7/2/5864451/mlb-a-primer-on-international-amateur-free-agency

    Also it's worth noting that although the Cubs & Rangers can only spend up to $250,000 per player this year (players under 10k don't count) the teams who go over by more than 15% THIS year, i.e. the Yankees, Rays, etc. will be penalized by not being able to spend more than $300,000 on any player for the next TWO years. That's much more significant of a penalty in my opinion, but the Yanks are going t go crazy this year to make up for it.

  • fb_avatar

    From a management prospective, it might almost make more sense for the Cardinals to go after David Price... Smardie will probably not be a ton less expensive himself, but add on what it might take to do and inter-division trade and it's probably pretty close. I think Jeff S. is a very talented pitcher, but Idk who would rather have him than Price based on talent alone.

  • In reply to Jonathan Ley:

    no doubt. good points.

  • Congratulations to Alcantara, Hendricks, Parker, Wada for making the AAA all star game.

  • Also Jim Callis says that Triple-A Iowa has the best lineup in the Minor Leagues (and I agree)...

    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/chc/pipeline-perspectives-cubs-triple-a-iowa-team-has-minors-best-lineup?ymd=20140703&content_id=82731198&vkey=news_chc

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    A far cry than last couple years when the Cubs traded so many players for PTBN or cash from AAA

  • not to change the subject, but I love that 'shopped picture of Theo.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SFToby:

    Was hoping someone would notice. That is yet another John Arguello photoshop masterpiece.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    Thank Toby!

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Ha! How did I miss that the first time I came to the article? I think that might be the new wallpaper on my work laptop!

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Ha! It wasn't there at first publishing. I changed it about 10 minutes into the article.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    An even better job of photo shopping in Jim Hendry's Blazer.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    Haha!

  • What was the quote they said Theo told ESPN yesterday if they win 10 straight they may add? Well they got their sweep vs boston but I don't think 10 straight will happen but that takes us to all star break so is he saying no moves till then?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to nkniacc13:

    Would like to see the Cubs be buyers rather than sellers every season.

  • In reply to Ray:

    Scott Feldman for Arrieta & Strop. Two month of Matt Garza for Grimm, Ramirez, Olt & C.J. Edwards. Was that buying or selling?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to wastrel:

    Selling.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ray:

    5 of the 6 he listed are currently on the team, and one would probably be pretty damn close if it wasn't for injury.

    The two guys we lost would not have been on the team this year anyway.

    Seems like buying to me.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    To each their own.

  • In reply to Ray:

    And buying,...... IMO.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to wastrel:

    This is a really good point. I hadn't thought of it in quite this way.

  • In reply to Ray:

    I wouldn't be shocked to see Cubs do a bit of both this July

  • In reply to nkniacc13:

    As they did last July. That's why they call them "trades."

  • In reply to wastrel:

    yeah but what im saying is moving prospects for major leaguers or closer to majors. Not trading vets just for prospects

  • In reply to nkniacc13:

    It depends on the vets. Wouldn't mind trading Barney for a prospect and opening space for Alcantara. That could work as a sort of trading up right there in terms of the ML club. With Samardzija & Hammel though, yes, got to be looking for near-term impact.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to nkniacc13:

    I would also like them to do this if the opportunity presents itself. They're in the enviable position of having more prospects than they can play.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to nkniacc13:

    You are right.

  • fb_avatar

    Hey guys, thanks for the lively debate today! I can't tell ya how much I enjoyed it. We actually accomplish this debate with no attacks! Impressive!!!

    It's what makes the Den the best place for us informed Cubs fans. Thanks again!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    Seconded. What this blog is all about.

  • i am glad there is a handful of people that understand that just because a guy rakes in the MiLB you dont bring him up during a losing season and put MILLIONS of bucks in Scott Boras's pocket while throwing away draft position and slot money . Oh and lose a year of control when the Cubs actually are good enough to do damage in October . Thanks Denizens that get it .

  • i think this club, with the few aaa prospects and a few impact free agent signings on the horizon, can do damage next October. Why discourage progress? why not foster progress?

  • In reply to RizzowiththeStick:

    i am just saying stay the course this season and give Theo/Jed 1 more offseason after deadline dealings , 1 more draft and then unleash the farm in 2015 after the super 2 is gone a few weeks into season . PS sign John Lester , thinking He wants to come back to Theo based on the report today on ESPN . not veiled very hard in his comments .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    I basically agree with this. Sometimes I think people ought to take a step back and consider the rules of the CBA that prevent fans from seeing the best baseball. These "years of control" that distort the natural arrival time of players. Draft rules that reward losing. These things are systemically wrong, literally immoral in a sporting sense of fair play, and yes you have to deal with the reality but you don't have to approve of it. You've got players and owners hashing out this stuff, but the fans who pay their way don't have a voice in that process. The other thing I want to say is that I believe losing is as hard or harder on this front office as it is on the rest of us; I think they've been trying to win with the resources they have. If they'd gotten anything close to average production from the outfield veterans this year, you're looking at a respectable record.

  • oh and hope Alcantara can be a Reyes type impact guy and Hendricks can be the Cubs AJ Morris type (pre TJ) in Cubs rotation and then maybe the Cubs can push the central division envelope .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    The worm is turning, yessir.

  • "The upside, however, is that the Cubs would be able to demand a premium for trading him within the division. (Mike)...."

    Sorry if someone else has made this point, but it seems to me another potential upside is that while the deal helps a division rival in the immediate future, it potentially hinders them in the long term, as the Cards would be deprived of prospects that might be an asset to them in years ahead.

  • Ok I will throw this out for discussion, if I was the Cubs GM this would be my plan over the next 8 months:

    The caveate being, everyone performs at expected levels and would be planning on fielding a winner in 2015.

    1. Trade Hammel now before deadline.
    2. Bring up Wada give him a July to showcase him
    3. Trade EJax,Wada,Villanueva,Russell,Barney & Schierholtz at traded deadline.
    4. Bring up Alcantera, Watkins, Rosscup, Vizcaino, Beeler & Hendricks. (Beeler or Hendricks should be your 5th starter next year with Edwards,Johnson & Black not far behind).
    5. Bringup Bryant,Baez & Lopez in September IF THEY ARE READY.
    *I know a bunch of you disagree (FA clock) but remember I am trying to win in 2015, 2021 be damned!!!
    6. Sign a quality starter like Jon Lester.
    7. Sign or trade for a big league hitter to play left field. Dont need a long term contract a 1-2-3 year deal. But a real hitter.

    With a bench of: Lake or Ruggiano, Kalish or Coughlan, Valbuena, Bonafacio & Lopez.
    Starting pitching: Shark,Lester,Arrieta,Wood, Hendricks or Beeler
    Bullpen:Vizcaino,Rondon,Ramirez,Grimm,Schlitter,Wright,Rosscup

    Lineup of: Alcantera CF,Castro SS (though I hate to move him off #4 he has done surprisingly well there), Rizzo 1B, Bryant RF, Free Agent LF, Baez 2b, Olt 3b?, Castillo C.

    That is a playoff team.

  • Sounds like Milwaukee wants/needs some more IFA pool money before they announce their headline IFA signing wonder if they have called the cubs

Leave a comment