Advertisement:

Padres making James Shields available..would Cubs still be interested?

Padres making James Shields available..would Cubs still be interested?

The Score is reporting that the Padres are pushing a James Shields trade.  You will remember the Cubs were interested in bringing in Shields last year, only to be outbid by an ambitious front office bent on creating an instant contender.  One year later, the Padres are coming off an 88 loss season and looking to cut payroll.  Could that mean a good value opportunity for the Cubs?

Given the price of starters this offseason, Shields might have some trade value after all.  The problem is that Shields' deal is a backloaded one and he will make a hefty $21M a year for the next 3 seasons.  Including a $2M buyout option in the last year of his contract, that is a commitment of 3 years/$65M at minimum.

The short term nature of the deal likely appeals to the Cubs, as does Shields proven ability  to take on a big workload, something the Cubs lacked after Arrieta and Lester last season.

Shields is also 4 years younger than John Lackey and is considered a good fit for any clubhouse.  When it comes to players talking about great teammates, Shields is often at or near the top of the list.  He also comes with significant post season experience.

There is a lot to like here, but the money is going to be an issue.  The Padres intention is to cut payroll after an ill-conceived attempt at a one year rebuild.  There are ways to make this palatable, however.

  1. The Padres could expand the deal to include an additional pitcher such as Tyson Ross or Andrew Cashner to entice the Cubs to take on the contract.
  2. The Padres could take on some salary of their own in a trade.  The Cubs could send back a player that will still save the Padres money overall, yet still save the Cubs significant money by reducing the net gain in payroll.  We have mentioned some of the players drawing significant salaries, so perhaps there is a fit that could be found among that group.
  3. Some combination of the two compromises above is a possibility as well.

The Padres and Cubs seem to match up well in terms of players and direction the two teams are heading.  If the Cubs can deal from depth, reduce the net hit to their payroll and/or pick up a useful secondary player in return, it certainly is an option worth considering.

Despite the workload, Shields doesn't seem to be slowing down much.  The velocity  has remained relatively constant and the K rate went up last year -- though it also came with a spike in the walk rate.  Shields had a slight alteration to his approach last year, throwing less cut fastballs and more curveballs.  It may have had something to do with both figures as the CB, along with his change-up, is a pitch with which he gets a lot of swings and misses.  The cutter, on the other hand, has less movement and is easier to throw for strikes, with the compromise being that a hitter is more likely to put the ball in play.

The other change was an uptick in his HR rate despite pitching in a big ballpark for half his starts.  The result was that while Shields' FIP soared to 4.45, the xFIP (3.70) remained relatively constant with what we had seen the previous  two seasons with the Royals.

The Cubs have long liked Shields and perhaps they believe the tinker with his approach led to some of the control and HR issues last year.  A return to the Shields of the previous two seasons would give the Cubs a formidable top 3 capable of going deep into games.

Of course, much will depend on how the deal is structured for the Cubs to take a gamble on a post-prime pitcher who arguably had the worst season of his career -- especially at the money he is owed.  The Padres are going to have to find a way to make the risk worthwhile.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • What about cliff lee? He's trying to pitch in 2016 and has been medically cleared by doctors that could be a low risk high reward option iif it's a 1 year deal with incentives.

  • In reply to bolla:

    Don't think that would be a priority. Cubs no longer in a position to rely on health flyers. They need innings in the middle of their rotation and Lee won't provide that. As a secondary depth option who may help by the end of the season, it is a consideration, but not a priority at this point

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, your multiple posts a day are getting addictive. Whenever it is that my family sits me down for my Cubs addiction intervention, you will be referenced as my exhibit 1A enabler.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I don't want to sound unappreciative of the current winning environment, but I do kind of miss the flyer days. It made the offseason and trade deadline extremely fun. I always prefer winning, just wanted to mention that I also enjoyed the path to getting here.

  • In reply to KC Cubs Fan:

    Go back to the 2000's, or 90's, or 80's, or 70's, or 60's, or, well, you get the point. I don't miss the "lovable losers", or the "Cubbies".

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    They could take a chance on a health risk at the AAA level but not as a #3 - #5 starter level player. More like Starter #7 / #8

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Dodgers did it with brett anderson last year. Lees age makes his a little more scary though.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree, Lee would not be a priority, but on a flyer type contract and released if he does not get added to the MLB at some point? As a starter or the 'pen. This FO loves them some depth and risk reward in their favor.

  • In reply to bolla:

    my friend's step-aunt makes $70 an hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 5 months but last month her pay was $18819 just working on the computer for a few hours. look at here
    ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ w­­w­­w­.b­u­z­z­n­e­w­s­9­9­.­c­o­­m

  • With the price of pitching and the hauls teams want for cost controlled younger pitchers I wouldn't mind shields and ross/cashner.The cubs would have to keep castro or baez.I wouldn't give up both

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bolla:

    IMO, hard to say no to both.

    We need to give Castro to even afford Shields, but that's probably only worth it to them if they get Baez too.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Cubs said they like their depth and trading 2 guys who can play multiple positions would hurt their depth and versatility.I wouldn't trade castro AND baez for shields and ross.I know Addison Russell is revered as a god around here but 2 years in a row with hamstring issues and he almost hurt himself sliding in the wc game I wouldn't be comfortable with russell as the sole ss option on the roster

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    then we say no. Castro for Shields is bad eniough. Baez/Castro both dor the 0ver-the-hill, expensive Shields? Not a chance. I tell Preller to llook somewhere else.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    I'm with ya there. Castro for Shields, if the Pads ate some of Shield's contract could be interesting. But no way I'm giving up Castro and Baez.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mutant beast:

    well, we're not talking about Shields. We're talking about Shields + Ross.

  • fb_avatar

    If Tyson Ross is part of the deal, let's get it done. If Tyson Ross is out, we're 100% out.

    Baez+ Castro + Candelario+ Vogelbach (they just lost Yonder Alonso)

    for
    Ross, Shields and Gyorko (aren't they trying to get rid of his salary?)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    I'd throw McKinney OR Almora in as well.

    Ross and Shields would make an exciting addition to the rotation.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    That would be too much salary coming back to the Cubs. No Gyorko. Cubs would be fine with La Stella as a stopgap if they have to trade both. Padres really like Baez, from what I recall but from Cubs side, Castro helps offset payroll concerns. If they get two pitchers, maybe Hammel is the guy they use to offset short term payroll. Lot of moving parts in that kind of deal.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    yeah, I wasn't sure what Jedd was making, but figured it's a possibility that Castro might be making too much for them (if they're looking to dump Payroll)

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Gyorko essentially offsets Castro overall, which means the Cubs would be taking on all of Shields and Ross. Castro alone for Shields saves the Padres $13M in 2016. And $13M for Shields is much more palatable for the Cubs. Padres may also be willing to take on a salary if the player is a potential long term piece.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Including Hammel in a trade for Shields would be mutually beneficial IMO. I'm not a huge fan of Hammel but he is a guy who would likely pitch well enough in the first half to bring back some sort of return at the deadline.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I have always gotten the impression that the FO has interest in Shields. Ross concerns me, only because he is a worse fielder then Lester, which is a stated area of improvement for the FO.
    Moving parts aside, and if it is more about salary dump, Shields for Milb"s and or a Coghlan and SD taking on some salary would be fine for me. In this FO and Bosio I trust.
    Hey, a new screen name!

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    You know Ross walked more batters than any NL pitcher last year with 88. And Shields was #2 with 84.

    That's an awful lot of walks added to the SP's when the FO has said they want to control the strike zone.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to rbrucato:

    And I'm confident that Chris Bosio can address that issue.
    Not saying he will obliterate it, but they're both very effective pitchers and it's hard for me to say (since I'm not a scout) that the walks may or may not be part of an organizational approach.(cashner was 17 btw, still pretty high)

  • In reply to rbrucato:

    Yeah, that doesn't seem like a great combo to me. Shields and Cashner might be the better combo to target.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    I see 2 possibilities
    1. Shields+ low level pitcher for Castro (no money exchanging hands) and sign a #4 pitcher to compete with hammel/hendricks
    2. Shields + Ross for Castro+ Baez+ Vogel+ Hammel

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 1908cubs:

    I like the idea but if they take Castro AND Hammel, the Pdres basically save no money (maybe just 3-4 MM. That won't cut it) and they're trying to dump some cash. That's why I threw in Candelario and Mckinney (or Almora).

    A couple every solid prospects (which they've been stockpiling) adds value without $$$

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    If Rose is included, we'd probably have to take the whole shields contract, remove Vogelbach from your deal, and sub in either an MLB ready piece like Soler, or someone near MLB in a premium spot, like Contreras. Acquiring Ross will hurt.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to DirkDiggler:

    Maybe but they're in a bind right now.

    They need to get rid of salary and the team is lacking all over. They're stockpiling prospects right now, not MLB talent. NO ONE is going to give them Good prospects AND take that whole contract. That's why bad contacts are bad.

    Castro is still plenty young and obviously so is Baez. And both of them are arguably better than what they have already.

    2016 will be Ross' 2nd arbitration year, so there's not THAT much cost control there.

    Maybe my deal isn't enough, but 2 seasons of Ross is NOT worth Soler.

  • In reply to 1908cubs:

    There's no way the Pads trade both Shields and Ross without getting two MLB-ready arms back. Losing both, along with Ian Kennedy, means they need to replace 96 starts from last year, and they don't have much ready in-house.

    I'm more interested in Carlos Quintana. The Sox have a lot of holes, but 3rd base is a major one; I'm wondering if they'd take Hendricks and Villanueva, plus a few prospects.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to garsky:

    Will assume u meant jose quintana. A big fubs sox trade just wont happen as long as the sox brass remains the same

  • In reply to in theo we trust:

    Yes, Jose, mea culpa

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    So is Hendricks or Hammel in the bullpen?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to springs:

    Hendricks to Iowa.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    I get that,.... but I have to admit that the idea of putting a guy who in 2015 gave 32 starts, 180 IP, close to a K/inning, a solid K/BB ratio, and a WAR of close to 2 down as depth in Iowa doesn't quite sit right with me.

    Especially since that guy is only going to cost the club a pre-arbitration salary.

    But yeah,.... somebody would have to go in some way or another & Hendricks still has at least one option year left.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Not a chance. Hendricks might be moved to swing man, but no chance of going to Iowa.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Doesn't Ross throw something like 45% sliders? I'd live in constant fear of his elbow exploding on the very next pitch.

  • fb_avatar

    SD effectively took a cash advance last year and paid him $10 mil
    If you look at the deal I believe it was $18.5 AAV.

    So to even it out they would need to throw in $8.75 million. (total)
    But for who ? SD has no SS so I guess Baez or Castro make sense.
    or - 2 prospects ? McKinney + ?

    But he has an opt out - which complicates it.

    IF the Cubs wanted to go with Ross, Schwarber, & Contreras
    they could send Montero and prospects in the deal - that might work.

    I like it a lot better than "shark" at $100 million for sure

  • In reply to deport soriano com:

    I think I remember they were having the same talks at the trade deadline last year and we wanted to give them Castro for Shields and money coming back our way The Padres weren't interested. Since then, Castro has elevated his stock quite a bit. A 1 for 1 would be the easiest deal to make and maybe now the Padres throw in 3-5 mil per year? At 5 mil, the Pads would still be coming out ahead in payroll, but trading a MOR starter for an average SS. Maybe not what they're looking for. At 3 mil, it makes some sense for both teams. This will sit until the Shark signs.

  • The Cubs could take all his salary and just try expand the deal
    and have the Cubs and or the Padres include more players

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    If the cubs added Candelario, the Pads would definitely send money our way.
    I don't want to see any of our young hitters traded this off-season. I'd like to see what they do this next season. I'm biased, of course, but I see all 5 young bats (Bryant, Schwarber, Soler, Russell, and Baez) making big gains next season--but so does Bill James. I'm predicting Cubs lead the league in runs next season, at 4.7. They could go as high as 5 per. Cubs went for 4.3 this season and that was with abbreviated seasons of Schwarber and Soler, Russell being rushed out of necessity, Baez being injured, etc. We could be the Blue Jays of the NL.

  • What about using Johnson or Williams from the farm system to start for Chicago? Can they be worse than Haren and Hammel in the 2nd half? Tough to get a good pitcher when on a budget.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 1rungames:

    Uh, you can do WAY worse than Hammel and Haren last year. Those guys weren't great obviously but you can do SO SO SO much worse than they did.

  • In reply to 1rungames:

    I think those guys are emergency starters until proven otherwise. And if they come up and stink up the joint the first month of the season, you could possibly be writing off any chance of winning the division. I don't think the Cards and Pirates will be as good next year as they were last year, but ya never know, and they're such persistent franchises that you really can't take that chance.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to ericccs:

    One month of starts by one starter is only 5 starts. So by no means would that wreck the season.

  • In reply to 1rungames:

    We're not on that much of a budget. The Cubs will add a legitimate #3 and possibly #4 starter, as well as a center fielder. The quality and duration of that transaction is much more debatable. Oh, for that crystal ball.

  • I like the idea of Shields! Guys tend to be what they are and last may have been more of an aberration than a trend. Remember it was only a few years ago he was "Big Game James." I bet you could get him for a bag of balls if the Cubs ate all the money. Or they could swap him & cash for Castro. This would then free money up to sign someone like Shark, a CF or perhaps Heyward!?! I rotation of Arrietta, Lester, Sharks, Shields, Hammel/Hendricks/FA would be VERY solid & would definitely eat innings. Plus they could build some depth by having Hendrick in AAA & perhaps take a flier on someone.

    He really isn't that much more expensive then Lackey, plus he is younger, familiar with Maddon and joining the Cubs he wouldn't be thought of as an "ace" but more of an innings eater. If he is your 4th or even 3rd starter thats not bad at all. Plus its only three years.

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    ^this!

  • Absolutely not on Shields. He was mediocre last year and his contract is awful. I know other options were presented to make the financial aspect more palatable but I would want nothing to do with him.

  • In reply to Eric:

    I'd rather have Shields for three years than Shark (who was less than mediocre last year) for four years at only slightly less AAV.

  • Interesting. Not a fan of the Cubs acquiring Shields because he was awful outside of Petco last year and I can see him giving up a lot of homeruns in the summer months at Wrigley.

    John, in terms of the #2 scenario you laid out, are you thinking this might potentially be a Castro for Shields straight up sort of thing? Padres shed some net salary and get younger, while the Cubs deal from a position of strength and get a #3 starter for a relatively small gain in the net payroll.

  • In reply to YouCannotBeSerious:

    not really true -- he started 16 at Petco and 17 on the road. He gave up 19 of his 33 HR's at home, more walks, and more H/IP.

    He had a bad outing when at SFO, TEX, and WAS. Gave up a bunch at Coors and Chase in 5 starts -- no real surprise there.

  • In reply to rbrucato:

    Does anybody recall that there was some meteorological explanation for why balls were flying out of Petco and Chavez Ravine in 2015? It was making both historically pitcher-friendly parks play to at least neutral. I'm not defending Shields. He's a big boy, but southern cal wasn't the pitching paradise it's been known to be in the past.

  • In reply to ericccs:

    I left San Diego two years ago for the greener pastures on Atlanta. Haha!!!

    Global warming? Maybe the cool damp nights were less existent? Great question. Wish I could answer.

  • In reply to rbrucato:

    An ERA of 4.5 on the road vs. 3.29 at home is a pretty bad road split. Especially when the home park is as cavernous as Petco. The fact he gave up more of his homeruns in Petco is even more reason to worry about him getting tagged in Wrigley, not less.

    Also worrisome is his WHIP of 1.33. That makes him #58 in the league. Hammel and Hendricks rank #23 & #24 respectively (1.16 WHIP) and many seem ready to run them out of town.

  • In reply to YouCannotBeSerious:

    Pitching at TEX, AZ, and Coors will inflate anyone's ERA. There's more to pitching than ERA. Look deeper into the numbers is all I was saying. Shields gave up 21 runs in 32 IP in those 6 road starts for a 5.90 ERA.

    Making the point he was just as bad or worse at home. If pitcher walks more batter, give up more HR, and more hits/IP you would expect the ERA to be higher. I would definitely be worried about Shields.

  • In reply to YouCannotBeSerious:

    Agree on the WHIP -- that's why I stated Ross and Shields were #1 and #2 in walks allowed last season.

  • In reply to rbrucato:

    Anyway you look at it, Shields was terrible on the road last year which was my original point. That's based on the entire body of his home and road work. You can't take away more than one third of the guy's road stats and make your point based on that.

    Looking deeper into the numbers makes him look worse. His FIP last year was 4.45. But I think his scariest numbers are these: 34, 2112, $63M. 34 years old (at beginning of next season), 2,112 career innings pitched, owed $63M.

    Still, if it's for Castro straight up, I'd think about it. Adds a starter (albeit one with a lot of warts) and might even give you enough room to go nuts and sign a guy like Heyward without having to trade Soler for pitching.

  • In reply to YouCannotBeSerious:

    Out of curiosity, what were his whip splits.

  • James Shields and Tyson Ross for Starlin Castro, Jason Hammel, Pierce Johnson, and Jeimer Candelario?

  • In reply to cubsfan:

    Cubs giving up way too much in that scenario, IMO.

  • In reply to cubsfan:

    Doubt SD would do that

  • fb_avatar

    ESPN says the Padres want Schwarber.

    I would do that.

    Shields + Ross + Cashner + prospects Margot, Guerra, Rea, and Renfroe

    for Schwarber, Castro and Hammel

    (calm down people, tongue is firmly in cheek)

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    The only SP I would even remotely consider for Schwarbs would be Sale and I am not sure about that cause just reeks of TJ surgery

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    3 good SP > 1 great SP

    Last year those 3 pitchers were worth 10.3 WAr as opposed to Sale's 6.2. Even Kershaw, who led the league in WAR was worth 8.6

    Again, I was just being fun, not seriously expecting that. But in that fun theory Schwarber would be out the door in seconds for 3 starters.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    fhis thinking is wrong though. 60% of a rotation is worth 10 wins compared to 20% worth 6. And thats with sale missing the first month of the season. Its much easier to just get 2 more 2 win guys than assuming repeat perfermorance from the 3 u mentioned

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Who wouldn't want Schwarber? Would think other teams could easily overwhelm the Cubs in a haul...

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    I imagine the conversation stopped right after SD mentioned Schwarber. SD doesn't want to pay Shields, their price will come down before pitchers and catchers report.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    We will insist on 2 MLB-ready pitchers. I've got the Christmas ham and tequila shots ready. Anyone from Cleveland hungry?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    I don't know Giff ... I'm thinking a straight-up deal might be possible. Shields for Arrieta. Man ... what a coup that would be.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    That's hilarious. They can keep and pay Shields for what may well be a 4th place team at best in 2016. They are in no position to make that kind of demand.

  • Why trade Hammel?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to djbk:

    Is this toward me?

    He makes almost $8MM next year and if we're (in fun theory) trading for 3 pitchers, kinda not needed.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    No,, it was meant to be a reply to cubsfan --sorry for the mix-up. I do like your idea, btw.

  • I still would like to see the Cubs sign Cahill. The fact that he only wants a 1 year deal make sit a no lose situation. Give him a legitamate shot at the #5 spot and if not back to the bullpen where he would be an excellent setup/groundball specialist.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    I really like this option. There is always before the trade deadline if it doesn't work out. If Cahill is back to being the pitcher that he was then problem solved for next year and would be a candidate for a QO this time next year.

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    I like this. Cahill was a good starter and he's in his prime.

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    Since Cahill was on the team last year, I think he knows where he would fit in so I doubt that he thinks he would get a legitimate shot at starting with Cubs. I would love to have him back and hope he feels the same but I doubt it.

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    I'd love Cahill to resign, but not with a guarantee to start on a contending team. From what I see, that is what he wants, and that is what he will get from a non-contender.

  • Do you mean "resign" as in retire, or "re-sign" as in coming back to the Cubs? I am resigned to the fact that he will not re-sign, but I would sure like it if he did.

  • In reply to Quasimodo:

    Ha! re-sign and resigned ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • I know many won't agree, but I'd rather re-sign Cahill than to pay the price for Shields and Shields/Ross. To me, our rotation isn't in desperate need, so there's no reason to add to it by subtracting any combination of Castro, Baez, Candelario, Pierce, McKinney, Vogelbach (names I've seen mentioned). Just my opy...cheers

  • I would like for the Cubs to sign Samardzija or a similar free agent, but I also wonder why everyone seems to think that the third best starting staff in baseball last year will be horrible this year.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    I would also like to see the Cubs sign Samardzija. I think he would slide nicely into the 3 or 4 hole. Not sure who you are hearing say we have a horrible pitching staff, but I am sure it's not here.

  • Adding Shields just seems to create the same problem that the team was trying to avoid by not signing Price. Too significant of an investment into the rotation with a bunch of old pitchers.

    However, the idea of getting a Ross or Cashner to help in the rotation certainly is exciting

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to nukee:

    To be fair, Price signed for 7 years. Shields would be for 3.

    And his high salary would be worth it only because we'd be saving so much on Ross. Price would not have had anyone mitigating the damage.

    In all honesty, to me, shields would be #4 behind Ross on this team and his main value would be that he would almost certainly be able to go 7-8 innings every game.

  • In reply to nukee:

    I think you misunderstand the "problem" of signing Price...and quite possibly most big name free agents: length of contract. A contract requiring both lots of years and a high AAV is the problem. Add in age and position (pitcher).

    In this case, though Shields has a high AAV and is older and a pitcher, risk and financial burdens are lessened by the length (3 yrs). That three year contract is a HUGE difference between Shields and Price/Grienke IMO.

    I'd be willing to bet that the FO would've gladly offered Price or Greinke $30M/yr on a 3 yr contract.

    To me, the emphasis is on length of contract, with exception to special cases (like Heyward). This would explain going after Alex Gordon despite his age and positional redundancy, and even old Lackey who costs a draft pick. They seem to be desirous of a shorter commitment.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    Yeah, when people talk about an Albatross contract, it's usually because it seems like that contract will never go away.

    7 years is a REALLY long time.
    Just for fun, 7 years ago the league leaders in pitching WAR were CC Sabathia, Lincecum, Halladay, Lee and Dan Haren.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Exactly right...length of contract (and relative AAV) was one of the strongest arguments for giving up young talent to acquire Hamels. I didn't agree with it, but I certainly acknowledge the strength of that viewpoint.

    Shields scares me but if we can get him without giving up anyone on MLB playoff roster other than Castro and throw in mid-level prospects (Corey Black and Zagunis rather than Jeimer Candelario and Willson Contreras), I'd be all for it.

  • In reply to nukee:

    Not necessarily, remember John's piece about trading for Gardner? Lets just say the got Shields + $15 for Castro & low level prospect. You added an arm for basically $6 million a year and dealt from a position of surplus. You are not bringing in Shields to be ace rather to be an innings eater & depth (think #4 if they sign Shark). And if the Cubs are indeed under financial constraints, you free up money for other need like Shark, a CF & bullpen.

    I have alot of respect for Castro after the way he handled the benching last year but he makes the most sense to trade for a need because of money owed & he plays a position of surplus for the Cubs.Trading him for a SP or CF which swaps or reduces payroll makes a ton of sense if you really think about it.

  • In reply to nukee:

    The difference is that Price required a 7 year commitment while Shields has only a 3 year commitment. And, of course, Schields makes only 66 percent of Price's salary.

  • I'd be excited about a creative deal like this under one of two conditions:

    Getting Ross (or I suppose even Cashner) back for assuming more $ in lieu of giving up less talent...

    OR

    The Cubs trading Hammel, Montero, other bigger salary players and B-level prospects.

    But personally, I'd only trade Hammel if the Cubs weren't getting two pitchers. And even if they do get two pitchers, I'm still somewhat intrigued by the possibility of Hammel going to the bullpen/swing role despite his salary.

    But really, if Heyward is signed, I would be fairly satisfied with any pitching addition.

  • Shields would not be my first choice to add to the rotation - but as per usual - if management thinks this is the best available alternative - I'll defer to their baseball savvy.

    Getting somebody like Cashner back in the deal would also be an interesting wrinkle. He's (obviously) somebody that us Cubs fans are familiar with,.... but he's had difficult time staying consistently healthy. Decent BB/K ratios, not too many HRs,

    Would rather see Cashner than Ross - other than the fact that he's already in Arbitration and eligible to be a FA come 2017.

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    Who would require more in return between Ross & Cashner? I assume Ross, but don't know.

  • I would guess Ross,... but that's just a guess as well. Extra year before FA and all.

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    Shields as a #4 or #5 would be fine, but I'd really like to only grab him if it means you get to add a #3 (Ross or Cashner) at a diminished prospect cost.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    Shields slots in before cashner for sure. Much better and more durable

  • fb_avatar

    I really think this might be an option. Shields had an off year last season for sure. But he was effective the last two seasons before in KC. It kind of reminds me of the Arrieta story with the Orioles. Where he was banned from throwing cutters, and when it came back he got lots of weak contact. If Shields switches back to cutters the HR rate will drop. If Castro's contract and maybe someone else like a Travis Wood go back? In the end the numbers will help the Padres especially in the last two years of Shields deal. Don't know what it would take for Ross to get in the deal. Baez too?

  • fb_avatar

    Let's try this out.

    Padres get: Castro and Villanueva (basically to balance out the 40-man roster)

    Cubs get: Shields, Hedges, $10-15M

    The Padres get salary relief as well as middle infield help. The $10-15M coming back to the Cubs is to offset some of the difference in their overall contract values. If the Cubs can simply get him back to his 2014 form they could have a short term contract with a guy who can be effective and is seen as a good teammate.

    The Cubs get Shields and the chance they can make him a 3WAR player again. If nothing else, he can get innings and is familiar with Maddon. Hedges makes things really interesting. The Padres have a solid and cost controlled catcher. Hedges is considered nothing special offensively but is considered very good defensively. He is our insurance policy of Schwarber can't catch OR it would be a stockpile of young talent at the most difficult position, I think, to play. Not a bad deal.

    I doubt the Padres go for it. I don't know if the Cubs should go for it. But I think it is worth considering.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joel Mayer:

    They aren't dealing Hedges.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    remove the $$ and replace villa with candelario, that might be acceptable to SD.

  • In reply to 1908cubs:

    That is probably more practical. Villanueva has little value in a trade - perhaps as much as Frandy Delarosa had.

  • fb_avatar

    Another person who might make sense for the Cubs to take a flyer on is Melvin Upton. One year left on a long deal. Had a decent rebound season last year. Could maybe be the short side of a CF platoon, with a career .750 OPS against lefties. Career walk rate over 10%. He's also familiar with Maddon. He's got warts on his resume, sure. But you might be able to use him in certain ways on a short-term basis. He'd essentially be a place holder.

    If we agreed to take his salary, or even a large portion of it, you wonder if it would lower the acquisition cost on either Ross or Shields.

  • In reply to Justin Tierney:

    Not a terrible idea Tierney,.... but who would we see holding down the long side of that CF platoon?

    Almora is probably not ready yet offensively.
    Bryant is probably not the guy you want playing CF regularly if LF/RF is defensively Schwarber/Soler.

    Unless the Cubs want to take a risk on Alcantara or Szczur as the regular CF, or get creative and try to work in Castro or Baez as a CF,... I'm not sure the idea works too well.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Justin Tierney:

    Melvin Upton has 2 years left at 16 Million a year.

    NO.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Two years @ $16 MM? Then no,... wouldn't got that route.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    On second look, this is correct. Nevermind unless the Padres want to eat about half of what he's owed.

  • In reply to Justin Tierney:

    More strikeouts. Eesh.

  • Shields + 13 M ( EJax coverage) for Hammel . , Padres still save around 40M . Cubs upgrade rotation . I am not dealing Castro / Baez or any other young bat for Shields .

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    they would actually INCREASE payroll in 2016 and get an inferior pitcher. No way they even think about it.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Then you are not getting Shields. Plus why trade Hammel for Shields? Cubs want pitching, this puts you right back where you started. Like I said Castro, imo, is the most likely to be dealt because he plays a position(s) the Cubs are stockpiled at and his money could be used to upgrade elsewhere.

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    its funny how people undervalue a team taking on salary, you folks realize that's the main reason he is being put on the block . If the Padres can get a replacement arm and save 40-50 M they would do it, and Shields is better than Hammel .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    If they want to dump salary I am sure the Cubs would take him for a bag of balls.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Seems relatively simple to me. Whatever pitcher you get that is not named Greinke, will come with some questions and worries. We are not getting Greinke.
    1) We need a starting pitcher and will get one.
    2) If Pads go for it, they save $9/M a year by taking Castro for Shields - and fill a position of need.
    3) Cubs can afford to give up Castro - because we have replacements in house.
    4) Shields comes to the Cubs for basically $10/M a year, for 3 years.

  • In reply to cubbustible:

    Exactly $10 mil/yr is a bargain! Yes you give up Castro but the Cubs are stocked at 2b/SS. I think Shields would get more than 10mil/yr on the open market.

  • In reply to cubbustible:

    This is very a very plausible solution for both sides.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbustible:

    Bingo.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Theres a difference being dumping a bad contract and traxing someone who is paid whst they are worth though. This isnt an ejax situation. They want to get rid of the salary but shields still holds plenty value. All things being equal he is on sharks level and shark is getting a bigger deal albeit being much younger.

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    Or you use Castro and part of a separate deal to get a younger guy than Shields why take on salary and give up a commodity in Castro that has more long term worth than Shields in the first place ? Who cares if dealing from depth you still want to get equal return

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    The thing is though Castro is owed a fair amount of money, I doubt any team with a young cost-controlled pitcher is gonna deal them for a guy we all appreciated by the end of the season but really wasn't "good" until September. GM's are going to look at the 5 months of the season and to his point to his faults. You cant look through "blue colored" glasses here. The reason SD would be interested is because they need a SS and/or 3b.

    Like it or not this would probably be one of the better deals you could get for basically just Castro. Plus you invest his salary into a need and it allows you to add another pitcher like a Shark or POSSIBLY pursue Heyward. Now I don't about you but a top 4 of Arrietta, Lester, Shark, Shields would be just as good or better than any in the division. And if it allowed a strong pursuit of Heyward the team would be MUCH improved!

  • In reply to Ronnie’sHairpiece:

    Also your depth would be dramatically improved. Basically Hammel, Hendricks and fingers-crossed Cahill would battle for a spot with the other 2 providing depth. Furthurmore you have Johnson in the minors along with a swing man like Cahill and Wood. Bamm, suddenly you have 8-9 capable starters.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    that might be close to fair , you would be taking on shields for 52 for 3 and giving up one year of hammel at a relative bargain price . another 7 million from SD seems about right .

  • I wouldn't mind Shields if the price was right. the shorter term is a nice fit for where we need to go with our pitching. Wouldn't want to give up much for him however given the salary. Anyone from the ML roster is too much.

    Wow has their new GM made a mess.

  • How does A.J. Preller even have a job?

    I guess he could write a book about how to set back a franchise (4 years minimum) in one short Winter.

  • In reply to MilwaukeeRoad:

    AJ Preller knows his stuff. It was a mistake to do what he did last year, but he is a shrewd talent evalautor, especially at the international level.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to MilwaukeeRoad:

    I understand where you're coming from but a few years ago people were asking how Dayton Moore still has a job. He made a terrible decision but he's hardly finished.

  • In reply to MilwaukeeRoad:

    Ownership gave some marching orders -- they don't get a pass. They tried to make a splash. It obviously failed.

  • In reply to MilwaukeeRoad:

    SD was in no mans land when he took over. His options were either to rebuild or go for it. Rebuilding in a town like SD where the fan base is fickle is not to be taken lightly. His moves may not have all panned out and I'm not sure how he expected to compete being so righthanded and without a true SS or CF, but hard to fault a GM for being aggressive. Isn't that what most fanbases want? When was the last time anyone talked about the Padres or there was any level of excitement at all around that franchise? Preller gave them a shot in the arm. He kept several of his top prospects and he will get a com pick for Upton. He was able to flip a closer for a good haul. He will probably be able to do the same with Shields and his other pitchers. I don't think he set them back anywhere close to four years. Maybe a year. They are just starting their rebuild a year later.

  • In reply to Michael Ernst:

    I agree for the most part, but he put no defense in CF, RF, SS, 2B, or C. How can you compete in a big ballpark with that mess? That had to put at least half a run on their pitchers' ERAs. At least. They had Gyorko playing SS at one point. C'mon. Preller is supposed to be a whiz kid, but his roster moves were right out of the 1970s. He was an unequivocal failure last year.
    Maybe this year his brain has returned to his body. That Kimbrel trade was pretty ridiculously good.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to ericccs:

    The big ballpark thing is propoganda. They moved the fences in and is now the 14th biggest outfield in the majors. Middle of the pack.

  • In reply to Michael Ernst:

    Same exact reason the White Sox won't be doing a nuclear detonation rebuild like the Cubs did. Their last remaining fan would be asked to turn out the lights in the stadium when he left.

  • In reply to Michael Ernst:

    San Diego perplexed me for several years.Their farm system was consistently top 5 but it never translated into MLB success. The go for it mentality last year wasn't a bad idea, but it was strangely executed. They've made some shrewd move recently though.

  • fb_avatar

    It would be an easier match if we had any overpaid players. But we really don't. E-Jax was, but he's gone.

    Isn't that nice, BTW? We really don't have any negative contracts

  • In reply to Zonk:

    Isn't it, though? I hadn't thought about that lately. The Cubs will trade our Zambrano, or Soriano, or Bradley for your... wait. We don't have those anymore. Thank goodness.

  • John, wouldn't Travis Wood be a candidate to go back to the Padres in this scenario? Given the signings of Brothers and Richard, Wood becomes expendable if you get starters in return.

    Castro, Wood, Vogelbach, Almora for Shields and Cashner makes a lot of sense. Get Cashner throwing more 4 seamers and less sinkers again. This gives the Padres about $10mil in savings

    Tyson Ross worries me being so slider dependent.

  • Nio thanks. Pass on Shields. Couldnt pitch well even in Petco.

  • Hey John. Why no talk of a Scott Kazmir signing. 3 year contract I would assume. And why no talk about a Rays and Cubs swap? We have young hitting? They have young pitching??

  • With all the options that keep coming up I am reminded of John's flow chart approach to the offseason. One move creates another move and prevents something else from occurring. Once the first major move happens things should start to sort themselves out. Right now there are more options than we can imagine. That's why we keep reading.

  • fb_avatar

    According to Stark the Padres want a young shortstop and more for Shields without eating any money. Good luck with that. Of course, that is kinda what they did last winter.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I think the trade market is getting off to a slow start because of expected returns. Maybe this will change once these guys sit down face to face? Or maybe change after Xmas.

    Pitching is requiring a lot which is almost bass-akwards when hitting is the premium right now in a pitcher-friendly game.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Just saw that, Mike. I say if they can include Ross (not Cashner) in a mega deal with Shields, we give them Castro and some other pieces. What about Tseng on our end? Wonder what their "and more" means. They'd probably want at least one arm back if they are coughing up two.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Alcantara can (somewhat) play short...lets offer him :)

  • In reply to springs:

    That would be too much. SD would need to take some salary back. Shields deal is backloaded. Good luck SD getting anything of value when they don't want to take any salary back.

  • Despite the Cubs issues with Ks and Baez' s contribution to them, I don't see the Javy traded for any one or two middle of the order starting pitches. Too much upside to risk.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    I agree Castro would be the best player I would give SD. They really don't have much leverage.

  • pass.

  • Trade scenario.....Padres get: Castro, Almora, Hendrick, and Vogelbach. The Cubs get Shields and Cashner. Good trade or who pulls out? Castro and Shields almost equal out $$$ wise. If anything maybe the Cubs get one more single A player. Thoughts????

  • In reply to Jer Bear:

    Terrible for us. We give up something like 21 years of team control for 3 years of a bad contract and 1 year of Cashner (who wasn't good last year and misses a ton of time) before he hits free agency. I'd love to have Cashner for a couple minor leaguers though. His stuff is still good.

  • In reply to ericccs:

    I don't believe any NL team values Vogelbach. I've seen him play a few times during ST and he has the range of a fence post. Even omitting DH Dan I still pass. I like Cashner but younger change of pace Hendricks has good shot at being the superior pitcher. Castro + Almora for Shields seems like a huge overpay. You made me think but Cubs pass. Just my biased 2 cents.

  • fb_avatar

    I think were over complicating it with Ross and cashner
    They are trying to move Shields and his contract - I know its not this simple but If your jed /theo lay out 4 options that work for the cubs & tell them to pick 1- for example:

    1. Castro & Montero for Shields - no $$ exchanges - Cubs pay Shields - they pay Castro & Montero

    2. Castro + 2 prospects ( Cubs top 5 off the table - give them some choices in the 6-20 area)

    3. Montero + 2 prospects (Cubs top 5 off the table - give them some choices in the 6-20 area)

    4. $9million to Cubs - 3 prospects To SD - (Cubs top 5 off the table - give them some choices in the 6-20 area)

    those all at least seem reasonable - I think? Maybe 1 of the above works for them. I could live with all of them.

  • In reply to deport soriano com:

    1. Overpay

    2. Overpay

    3. Overpay

    4. That depends on the prospects.

    My 2 cents.

  • So now there are reports from Bruce Levine and Jayson Stark that Samardzija is getting offers in the range of $90-$100 million. Hard to know what to believe. But I don't think the Cubs would go above $100 million for him.

  • In reply to October:

    Hard to take Bruce seriously sometimes. He was on the radio this morning saying he doesn't think any team will offer Shark more than 3 years $54M and maybe a 4th year option.

  • Kenta Maeda has been posted!

  • Castro is worth my than Shield imo.
    What would Castro get if he was a FA right now. 6 and 50 maybe. I would think he could get that easily. Cubs have him for 38. So thats 12m surplus.
    What would Shields get 3 and 45 maybe 50. Padres have him for 65. so thats 15 over
    Does that make Castro 27m more valuable in a trade.
    Trade would be: Padres get Castro. Cubs get Shields and 27m.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to NZCub:

    No team is signing castro for 6 years if he hits free agency. The inconsistency is too much for a long term deal. Hence no one offering much for him.

  • In reply to NZCub:

    Castro gets $38M over 3 years, not 6.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to hoopscubs:

    No he doesnt. He gets a one year 8 mil deal or 2 for 14. 1 good year the past 3 years and hes been healthy every year.

  • fb_avatar

    So now Maeda is posted. The fee is $20M. What do the Cubs do? I say go for it. The minimum for stateside pitchers is going to be at least $80M and I think Maeda can be had for less than that, and even if is that much he'll be 28 next year and just coming into his prime--and again, we keep the Core and draft picks.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jonathan Friedman:

    absolutely go for it; with what mediocre MLB pitchers are getting this winter, Maeda could be a steal.

    what a bummer it would be if all the cubs got out of this winter was Lackey, Shields and Austin Jackson!

  • How does this off-season sound: Sign Jason Heyward for CF
    Trade Castro, Montero, Coghlan/McKinney, and Carl Edwards to the Padres for Shields, Cashner, Derek Norris, and $5-$10 million dollars
    Lineup:
    1. Heyward
    2. Russell
    3. Rizzo
    4. Bryant
    5. Schwarber
    6. Soler
    7. Norris
    8. Pitcher
    9. Baez
    Rotation:
    1. Arrieta
    2. Lester
    3. Shields
    4. Cashner
    5. Hendricks/Hammel

  • In reply to Doublenickle:

    Too many moves for a team that won 97 games, they don't need an overhaul and Montero is a better all around catcher than Norris, so I don't see how that makes sense, IMHO.

  • In reply to Caps:

    OK so take out Montero and Norris and throw in Vogelbach.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Doublenickle:

    Not sure what that deal does for the Padres.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    It gives the a young cost controlled shortstop, a lead-off hitter, a veteran catcher to groom Hedges, and a potential late inning reliver while shedding long term payroll

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Doublenickle:

    It does nothing of the sort. They take on money in that deal. They're essentially taking on payroll to give away one of the most valuable chips (Cashner) for a shortstop whose contract looks like market value and a guy who the Cubs acquired for an A-ball pitcher. If Coghlan or McKinney could leadoff next year, they'd be doing it for the Cubs. (Another issue: Coghlan and McKinney are not even close to interchangeable.)

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    True but McKinney and Coghlan have nowhere to play on the cubs with Schwarber in LF and no DH coming to the N.L. anytime soon and I admit the lead-off thing was a stretch but San Diego doesn't have any better lead-off options and at the very least it helps the balance their lineup with a left handed hitter in LF since Wil Myers wants to play first base.

  • In reply to Doublenickle:

    Revised trade idea:
    Castro, McKinney, Edwards, and Candelario for Shields, Cashner and $5 million

  • In reply to Doublenickle:

    Not sure why people are valuing Shields this much. Last year Padres gave him more money than the Cubs valued him at on a backloaded contract for gauranteed 18 mil AAV. Meaning last year if the Padres put Shields up for trade, Padres would have to add something to that trade for the Cubs to be willing to bite. One year later, Shields had a less than stellar year pitching below career averages in a pitchers park. Because his contract is backloaded, his contract now goes up to 21+ million AAV guaranteed money. I'd say for the Cubs to be interested Padres have to add 10-15 million to the deal just to take him off their hands. So essentially your trade is giving up our 3 time short stop, three of our best prospects, and taking on a bad contract which is still bad with the money coming back for an injury prone Cashner who is a free agent after the season. Theo would be run out of town for pulling that trade.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Doublenickle:

    Trading Shields is a pure salary dump for SD. I do not see how they have any leverage in that kind of a move. We do not have to act like buyers in this move and start giving up pcs. off the roster or the farm. They would have to eat a lot of money for us to even consider Castro in a deal IMO.

    We literally paid NYY to take Soriano for 1 1/2 yrs. for a young wild A ball pitcher in Black. Who may be selected in rule 5 now, but SD has no leverage in a salary dump move.

  • In reply to johnsmithcubfan:

    Agreed. Shields led the league in HR allowed pitching in Petco. In Wrigley? He'd make Dan Haren look like Walter Johnson. Ugh.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to djbk:

    Petco js the 14th biggest park. Its not the same as when it was built.

  • In reply to in theo we trust:

    Petco has been, and continues to be, a harder park to homer in than Wrigley.. My point is that if Shields led the league in HR allowed in Petco, can we really expect better in Wrigley? No.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to djbk:

    Its not a hard park to homer in. They had the 2 pitchers with the most homers allowed last year. Just because the padres team sucked doesnt mean its a tough oark.

  • Completely O/T, but with HOF voting underway, I started thinking (always a dangerous thing) -- it's an absolute travesty that Tim Raines is not in the Hall! He doesn't have the -- er--issues that have kept out the likes of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, or even the possible taint that has hurt Bagwell and Piazza. I love Craig Biggio, and am glad he made it last year, but how is it possible that he's in and Raines is not?

  • In reply to djbk:

    Raines didn't have steroid issues, but he had drug issues.

    One of the reasons he slid headfirst was because he had cocaine in his back pocket. That's about the only reason I can think of for keeping him out so long.

    I think he'll get in eventually.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to hoffpauir6:

    FYI......cocaine ( even if he used it ) is not a performance enhancing drug.

    If he didn't take it, his numbers would be even better. Coke gets you hyper but it also slows down your reflexes which cannot be good for playing baseball ESP in the batters box.

    He should be in by now

  • The only reason I take Shields is to get Ross.

    I doubt any team is dumb enough to take on that salary without the Pads significantly sweetening the pot, either with a lot of cash or a player.

    I'm not giving away Castro, either. He is not overpaid!

  • My two cents, if this is about Shields, it does not have to be one stop shopping.
    (The FO, at last count has signed 6 pitchers.) Not the 2 we wanted; but still. there is a pattern.

    Shields as a stand alone with SD eating 8-10m and some prospects? Lets not forget, SD needs players, prospects and to cut payroll. But it does n0t all have to come in one deal. Shields is a salary dump.
    That is what you pay for a 3 or 4 these days.

    A Marge or Leake at 15m'ish. One with a QO and one without.

    Teheran, a young controllable pitcher, from a team looking to compete in 2016. No disrespect to "rbrucato", but shopping players is one thing. But I look at what they got for Simmons? A Coghlan "type" and a Newcombe "type" and prospects.

    Any two of the above at around 27m or less works.

    Then they can get Heyward hold onto Soler, Baez and Castro and let it all play out next year.
    I'd like to think the FO takes advantage, even if it costs up to 15m more then they would like, to see it play out.
    This off-season is unique, not just for the Cubs, but in regards to the FA class.

    In FO-Bosio I trust.

  • None taken. It's not personal to me. As I wrote, I shared what I was told. You are free to agree/disagree with them. I can tell you they value Miller higher than they valued Simmons, FWIW.

  • Shields would be an interesting addition, but all signs point to him being firmly on the decline. His velocity dropped 1 mph across the board last year, he is turning 34 in two weeks, and his home run rate ballooned last year, despite indications from his hard hit rate being the highest he has had in the past 5 years. I like him as a back end addition, he is definitely noted for his ability to teach his nasty changeup, which would be wonderful for the Cubs' rotation, but I'm not sure he is worth the price by himself.

    TLDR: give me Samardzija.

  • money should not matter. It should never matter on the North Side. The current budget is completely arbitrary and pointless. That being said, is Shields really the right guy? Sure, he's a good guy which is crucial in this particular clubhouse. But I echo everyone citing his home run rate (in Petco?) I think we were all relieved last year watching him, that we weren't paying him. I don't see why things would be any different now.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Rob Letterly:

    If by "completely arbitrary and pointless" you mean "imposed by both state and federal law, the violation of which would expose the team and the Ricketts personally to investigation, fines, and possibly worse sanctions from regulators" then you are completely correct.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Both of you are completely off base. I guess both of you assume that the Ricketts Family Trust (a) has infinite money, and (b) wants to blow it in the manner Boston is doing.

    Maybe Cubs fans who don't feel that they are paying enough for tickets and official memorabilia should start a Go Fund Me page for the Trust.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    You're both just wrong. The Cubs are technically owned by a family trust and that ownership model imposes legal restrictions on salary. Wittenmyer was exactly right on this. This is about the law. They can't raise spending beyond a certain point legally.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Mike is completely on base. The Cubs payroll has an absolute ceiling until the mechanism of ownership changes, which according to my interpretation will happen when new TV money kicks in 2019-2020 timeframe.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to hoopscubs:

    And even if the mechanism of ownershp doesn't change the increase in revenue associated with the new deal will significantly increase what they can spend by the trust's terms. The flip side of that is the Cubs are more sensitive than most teams to the potential collapse of the broadcast cable market.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Per my estimate, Theo has got $21M to spend. More if he can dump a salary or two. I was a bit surprised that one of Wood or Coghlan wasn't traded - that would have freed up some payroll.

    On the plus side, the constraint will force creativity. That's fun for us fans.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    WHAT LAW? Cite it. The last I heard, Gordon Wittenmyer is not a practitioner of estates and trusts law, just like Bruce Levine was not a professor of tax law.

    Purported statements of law are invalid unless you have a primary source for them.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    This philosophy is a pretty blinkered way to go through life. Wittenmyer cited tax and trust experts in his article. My conversations with friends in the business have yielded similar information. You can choose to try to become an expert on everything instead of believing experts. That's your call. But it seems better to make yourself an expert of something and at least give the benefit of the doubt to experts in their fields.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I'd also say: using your logic shouldn't you want to find the absence of a law in order to disprove Wittenmyer and hold your belief? Start digging and show my the law that rebuts Wittenmyer.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    That's the most backward logic I have ever heard, Look up "burden of proof." You made the assertion of law, you establish it. I told you how you could do so. It is not up to anyone to prove a negative.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    The burden of proof is on you. Wittenmyer cited experts. So I'm citing them. Your turn.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Sorry, "experts" are not primary sources. Take Terry Sullivan on Channel 9. He is only a shill.

    Mike, your law school training has not done you any good. You believe in hearsay.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    This is a blinkered and sad life. Good luck learning ANYTHING with this philosophy. What rules in a court of law and what rules in everyday common sense are very different things. Without relying on experts, education would be literally impossible.

    (Okay, how do we know what happened at Gettysburg? NO! We can't trust Coddington. We have to find the original field reports. Oh, crap, most of Pickett's Division was wiped out. Well, we're gonna have to become archaeologists so that we can safely dig for fragments to put together their movements...)

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    As I said, your law school training didn't do you any good, Mike. Until you show some indication you understand how legal research works, that ends this thread.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    No law school training. I'm just an academic who seeks facts.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    That is exactly what he means...Rob is a rebel and the law does not stop him!

  • I would offer....
    Baez, Montero, Hammel, and Rosscup for Shields & Ross.

    Padres get their young stud SS, and a starter and a young left-handed reliever (who I will be glad not to have to see again). They get rid of salary, but take on a bit back in Montero and Hammel.

    No way do I give up Contreras...he is the Cubs next catcher. He fits the mold of controlling the strike zone. If Montero moves, he could make the team with a good spring. Ross has one more year and Schwarber also.

  • fb_avatar

    Is everyone here aware that Shield's contract has an opt-out after next year? That's the biggest reason, IMO, we should be all kinds of out on James Shields, unless the Padres are willing to spot us $20 mil or so for 2017-2018 if he doesn't opt-out, and that's just not something I see Padres doing.

    The opt out virtually guarantees that the last 2 years of that contract become an anchor. If he rebounds in 2016, he's gone after one season. If he gets worse, you're on the hook for $44 mil. Limited upside, all kinds of downside.

    No thanks!

  • In reply to Zonk:

    They mentioned an opt out. This sounds like the contract Houston gave A Roid. Then, of course, according to A Roid, everything after that, including the one year suspension, was about the money, according to A.

  • In reply to jack:

    Rangers play in Houston?

Leave a comment