David DeJesus traded to Nationals for PTBNL

[nwfisch]

For what it's worth, the cubs got Schierholtz for $2 mil last off season. So you're argument of hanging on to Dejesus to get a possibly prospect and not saving $2.5 mil is flimsy. Additionally, there's no guarantee Tampa even keeps Dejesus at which point the cubs might be able to sign him in the off season for less than the $6.5 mil he was set to make. An entirely realistic situation is the Rays let him walk and the cubs sign him for say $5 mil/year. That then means they are actually only paying him $2.5 mil next year with the savings they had this year. The same works for whomever they sign in the off season even if it's not dejesus.

The facts are what they got in return is fairly irrelevant because the money savings is what they wanted. To say they were "schooled" because they didn't get a low level prospect is a tad ridiculous. People act like saving money means nothing but between Soriano and this trade that's nearly $10 mil they can spend next year.

And if the team is making moves to "save money" then I think we have bigger problems on our hands than DeJesus.

 

[beckdawg]

And if the team is making moves to "save money" then I think we have bigger problems on our hands than DeJesus.

That's the reality of the situation. I'm sorry you disagree with it but I'm sure oakland fans feel the same way. It doesn't matter that the cubs are a bigger market team if the owners only want to spend <x> amount then that's all there is to it. I'd much rather a front office that is fiscally responsible with their money than one gambling on the chance of getting a prospect that probably wouldn't be highly valuable anyways. Payroll doesn't matter to me. Getting the most out of what you have to spend does.

 

[nwfisch]

That's the reality of the situation. I'm sorry you disagree with it but I'm sure oakland fans feel the same way. It doesn't matter that the cubs are a bigger market team if the owners only want to spend <x> amount then that's all there is to it. I'd much rather a front office that is fiscally responsible with their money than one gambling on the chance of getting a prospect that probably wouldn't be highly valuable anyways. Payroll doesn't matter to me. Getting the most out of what you have to spend does.

We're not Oakland, we're in Chicago, we're the 3rd largest market in baseball. So it isn't OK. The people that rationalize these moves made to save a trivial amount of money, a drop in the bucket relative to Ricketts is amusing to say the least.

And again, the As haven't won a trophy for least dollars spent per win.

 

[beckdawg]

We're not Oakland, we're in Chicago, we're the 3rd largest market in baseball. So it isn't OK. The people that rationalize these moves made to save a trivial amount of money, a drop in the bucket relative to Ricketts is amusing to say the least.

And again, the As haven't won a trophy for least dollars spent per win.

But it doesn't matter if Chicago is the third largest market and that's what people need to understand. If the owners decide they want to use the cubs as a cash cow and not pay much in salary they can. That is separate from front office moves. The front office has <x> amount of money to spend where <x> is set by the owners. That's the point.

And as for the "trivial amounts of money," They saved $6 mil on Soriano and $2.5 mil on this. They had $40 mil to spend last year between all of FA and picking up Soler. $8.5 mil isn't trivial. It's 21% of the money they had to spend last year. Some fans want to believe in this fantasy world where the cubs front office are able to spend $150 mil in yearly payroll. That doesn't exist in this reality because the owners have set a payroll far lower than that.

And even if the cubs did have that money, throwing money at problems doesn't fix them. If it did the Yankees arguably should have won way more than one title in the last 10 years. They've yearly been the highest payroll. Teams like Tampa and Oakland have been as competitive with much lower salary because they are fiscally responsible. In all honesty, the cubs are probably for the foreseeable future in a similar payroll to the Cardinals rather than the top 5 payroll range. And in that range $8.5 mil is a huge deal. Last year they got Feldman and Schierholtz for that which were greatly productive.

Also, are people seriously butt hurt about trading Dejesus? I understand Soriano though I've vocally disagreed based on his horrible OBP and long cold streaks. But, Dejesus? Dejesus is an average OF who was a good value base on his contract. He would have made $6.5 mil next year and they would have had to buy him out to not pay him that. They picked up Schierholtz for $2 mil last off season. Dejesus isn't worth 3x Schierholtz.

Im not saying the front office is perfect. But some of this crap is bitching over trivial stuff.

 

[nwfisch]

But it doesn't matter if Chicago is the third largest market and that's what people need to understand. If the owners decide they want to use the cubs as a cash cow and not pay much in salary they can. That is separate from front office moves. The front office has <x> amount of money to spend where <x> is set by the owners. That's the point.

And as for the "trivial amounts of money," They saved $6 mil on Soriano and $2.5 mil on this. They had $40 mil to spend last year between all of FA and picking up Soler. $8.5 mil isn't trivial. It's 21% of the money they had to spend last year. Some fans want to believe in this fantasy world where the cubs front office are able to spend $150 mil in yearly payroll. That doesn't exist in this reality because the owners have set a payroll far lower than that.

And even if the cubs did have that money, throwing money at problems doesn't fix them. If it did the Yankees arguably should have won way more than one title in the last 10 years. They've yearly been the highest payroll. Teams like Tampa and Oakland have been as competitive with much lower salary because they are fiscally responsible. In all honesty, the cubs are probably for the foreseeable future in a similar payroll to the Cardinals rather than the top 5 payroll range. And in that range $8.5 mil is a huge deal. Last year they got Feldman and Schierholtz for that which were greatly productive.

Also, are people seriously butt hurt about trading Dejesus? I understand Soriano though I've vocally disagreed based on his horrible OBP and long cold streaks. But, Dejesus? Dejesus is an average OF who was a good value base on his contract. He would have made $6.5 mil next year and they would have had to buy him out to not pay him that. They picked up Schierholtz for $2 mil last off season. Dejesus isn't worth 3x Schierholtz.

Im not saying the front office is perfect. But some of this crap is bitching over trivial stuff.

They can and will be held accountable by the attendance numbers. I understand the team is against a budget, but at the same time, they aren't paying Feldman, Garza, so I don't see the need to rejoice or be positive of the fact they saved relative to two dollars in the organization. They aren't increasing revenue by losing 100 games a year at Wrigley, I'll tell you that. That place was a ghost town when I was there 2 weeks ago.

Not one person in this thread demanded a $150M payroll. What I do see is people who want to defend the spending and correctly cite the As and Rays as fair examples of low payroll teams that have modest success.

The Royals and Pirates have struggled for 20 years apiece with middling payrolls.

All I wanted is the Cubs to say garbage was garbage and dump Marmol and Stewart before the dicked around and lost more games because of them. And then when they trade productive players, I feel the returns are very limited with many issues. Yes, just a salary dump for DeJesus is a limited return for me. If the money DeJesus was/is making separates the Cubs from pursuing Choo or any other FA, we have bigger problems on our hands.

 

[beckdawg]

They can and will be held accountable by the attendance numbers. I understand the team is against a budget, but at the same time, they aren't paying Feldman, Garza, so I don't see the need to rejoice or be positive of the fact they saved relative to two dollars in the organization. They aren't increasing revenue by losing 100 games a year at Wrigley, I'll tell you that. That place was a ghost town when I was there 2 weeks ago.

Not one person in this thread demanded a $150M payroll. What I do see is people who want to defend the spending and correctly cite the As and Rays as fair examples of low payroll teams that have modest success.

The Royals and Pirates have struggled for 20 years apiece with middling payrolls.

All I wanted is the Cubs to say garbage was garbage and dump Marmol and Stewart before the dicked around and lost more games because of them. And then when they trade productive players, I feel the returns are very limited with many issues. Yes, just a salary dump for DeJesus is a limited return for me. If the money DeJesus was/is making separates the Cubs from pursuing Choo or any other FA, we have bigger problems on our hands.

You, and others, have brought up the fact chicago is a top 3 market. That's where the talk of a $150 mil payroll comes from as that's what top 5 spending clubs spend. As for small market teams, of course some will work and others wont. The reason the rays and oakland are brought up isn't to say that it's the only way to build a team. It's a contrast to people suggesting having a larger payroll is the only way to win.

If you want to debate the merits of trading Garza I can understand it. But who else have they traded that you're really worried about not being here in 2 years? That's why this stuff is so trivial. Dempster, Maholm, Feldman, Dejesus, and Soriano were never part of the rebuilding plans years 3+ from start. Simply put, they weren't going to pay Dejesus $6.5 mil next year. And to buy him out is $1.5 mil. So of course you trade him because some money is better than no money. It's really that simple. It's not rejoicing that it was an amazing trade. It's understanding the situation. Every year there is a guy like Dejesus in FA. He's not a great loss. Same for the rest of those guys.

As I said, I don't think the front office is doing anything earth shattering. However, I think it's the right course of action. Unfortunately for the cubs they didn't have much high level minor league talent. And unless you go nuts in FA you aren't going to fix the holes they had while waiting for the minor league talent to mature. That means you throw out a bunch of filler players for 2 years and hope for the best. I think they hoped things would fall right and they would contend. But in all honesty they probably knew they wouldn't be good enough to compete and they put out a bunch of guys who could possibly be good trade pieces. For a team that is trying to build a farm system and play for 3-4 years down the road that makes sense as it adds more than they could get without trades.

The "limited return" they are getting clearly isn't much. But the point is it's more resources that they didn't have going into next year be it an A ball pitcher or $2.5 mil. And that could be part of the future.

 

[Parade_Rain]

...If the money DeJesus was/is making separates the Cubs from pursuing Choo or any other FA, we have bigger problems on our hands.

Why? That seems to be how an organization gets stuck with an A-Rod type of contract or a Pujols type of contract where it's too long and in the last years way too much. Having a fair budget with a good personnel team allows/requires the personnel team to make the most thoughtful decisions for the organization possible.

 

[nwfisch]

Why? That seems to be how an organization gets stuck with an A-Rod type of contract or a Pujols type of contract where it's too long and in the last years way too much. Having a fair budget with a good personnel team allows/requires the personnel team to make the most thoughtful decisions for the organization possible.

How does keeping David DeJesus for $9M hamstring the club to the point they can't pursue Choo or any other FA? We're talking David Dejesus here, not ARod or Albert Pujols.

Then I guess my question is, if the Cubs aren't seriously competing until 2015, what was the point of signing Dejesus to a 3 year deal in 2011?

I guess I'm a guy who believes unless there are dire circumstances (i.e. Milton Bradley, Z) that the contract should be fulfilled by the team.

 

[Parade_Rain]

How does keeping David DeJesus for $9M hamstring the club to the point they can't pursue Choo or any other FA? We're talking David Dejesus here, not ARod or Albert Pujols.

Then I guess my question is, if the Cubs aren't seriously competing until 2015, what was the point of signing Dejesus to a 3 year deal in 2011?

I guess I'm a guy who believes unless there are dire circumstances (i.e. Milton Bradley, Z) that the contract should be fulfilled by the team.

In my view this really isn't about the efficiency of DeJesus or what they received in return. What it does is make room to see an extra September call up. If you want the long and rewarding journey to be shorter, you should like this move. It will give a look to an extra MiLB player. DeJesus is a rental for a team, if TB decides not to pick up his option, AFAIK. He could come back next year possibly. If that's the case, this move helped the big club in several ways. They weren't going anywhere this season. I liked DeJesus because he was a good value as a player and a good guy to have around a young team.

Edit: I didn't necessarily answer your first question clearly, Fisch. The DeJesus contract doesn't/didn't hamstring them. You were discussing money and being hamstrung. When teams spend crazy just to try to win, you get contracts that nobody wants. Zambrano. Bradley. Soriano. How many other teams do you think the Cubs need to pay for them to play players that used to be Cubs? That doesn't seem like an effective, long-term business strategy to me.