FREE AGENT Signings

[TC in Mississippi]

Different mindsets, and props to the Yankees.

The cubs offered what they thought was fair.

The Yankees offered something that blew 'fair' out of the water.

Which one do you think wins?

Epstein himself said 'But let’s not kid ourselves. These deals will always be about years and dollars. Epstein put it this way during his end-of-season news conference: “Like 99 percent of free agents go to the high bidder.”'

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/signing-cubs-would-be-big-leap-faith-jon-lester

If he thinks this way.......and knew the Yankees were gonna beat his offer, my question is 'why bother?' Positive perception? C'mon, that's kiddy stuff.

I want them to challenge the cards this year, and right now its not looking good. Its very, very plausible for the cubs to sneak past Cinci (about to rebuild), Pittsburgh, and possibly Milwaukee, or at least be far more competitive. But they gotta make the right moves, and so far they haven't. Which is 50-50 for me. I'm not crying over Russell Martin. But a big need in LF, C, and a TOR pitcher are three acquisitions necessary to happen before the cubs leave the basement/laughing stock category.

I thought this was supposed to be the year we stop getting pantsed by the team in Missouri?

Again you you have to listen to what they say and when they say "compete" and "contend" they're in different contexts and different years. They want to compete this year, which I take to mean they want to be a potential buyer at the deadline. Contending is what they talk about for 2016. If you want to be realistic and take a long hard look you can see that given all the uncertainty that comes with young players there would be very little way to put a team together that would compete with the Cardinals in 2015. Not without blowing up a careful plan to have the team not only compete with St. Louis but emulate how they do it. A lot of questions should be answered in 2015 and decisions can be made going into 2016 that would be more risky guesses right now.

One thing that so many people keep bringing up which makes no sense to me is this idea that they were going to get a left fielder this offseason. If you look at this with any critical thinking you would realize they wouldn't do that and they haven't even alluded to it. A guy to platoon with Coghlan? Sure, but a full time guy that you're going to sign to a multi year contract? Not a chance. They still have two of their top prospects that if they don't stick at their targeted positions really only fit in left in Bryant and Schwarber. Sure Bryant could play RF as well but I think Soler is penciled in there for most of the next decade. Schwarber is a really uncertain maybe at catcher and besides that is only suitable for LF, unless he's traded to an AL club and let's face his left handed power isn't likely to be traded. So you already have a tough situation in left and now you block even those two guys? C'mon. Here's a hypothetical in a really nice scenario for the Cubs in 2015; Baez starts to turn it around and say projects to .240/.320/.560 with 35 HR, Castro gets all the way back to his best and looks like .280/.320/.440 with 15 HR, Bryant after his call up is looking like full season numbers could be .280/.380/.520 with 25 HR and Addison Russell is hitting up a storm in AAA. You're likely not talking about trading Castro or Baez anymore, Bryant was never going anywhere and you need a place for Russell to play. Some scouting reports have started to say that he looked a bit stiff at SS in the AFL so maybe 3rd is his natural position after all. Bryant goes to LF and you have one of the best hitting line ups in the NL. I'm not even saying that's going to happen, my rose colored glasses have been broken for years, but it could and don't think the FO doesn't think that it could. In that scenario if they had played against the plan and signed Melky Cabrerra in LF for 4 years what do you do? Think you might like Bryant or Russell's 22 year old bats over a 30 year old Melky's? I mean seriously you sign a full time left fielder and you're actively sabotaging your own plan.

As far as catcher Russell Martin ticked off a lot of must have boxes, veteran leader, high OBP, defensive wiz and excellent with a staff and was naturally a target in free agency. Toronto paid stupid money for him and the Cubs wouldn't. Castillo is not the worst thing that could happen in 2015, and they guys in development. I have never thought that catcher was a prime target this offseason, Russell Martin the complete player was and the fact that he was a catcher and upgrade was a bonus. If Castillo gets back to 2013 numbers he's more than serviceable.

As far a Tanaka goes they didn't make the offer for show. They didn't post $20 million for show. They really didn't think he was worth the Yankees' bid and they were unwilling to go that high and as some others said they would have had to go higher than that because of where NY stood going into 2014 vs. where the Cubs stood. This year is different in a lot of ways. Joe Maddon is managing this team. A lot of prospect questions have been answered at least in part and guys like Bryant and Russell are very, very close to the major leagues. Makes it an attractive place for guys to come. Is Jon Lester considering signing here? I believe he is but that doesn't mean he won't sign elsewhere. We know he likes Boston, his family likes Boston and they could spend time there in the summer. Boston has made an offer said to be 6 years $130 million, it's unlikely they're going to go much higher since less than a year ago they were taking 4 years $70 million. I'm sure he has a number that would make him sign in Boston. His family has just moved to Atlanta and have built a big home there, I'm sure there's a number where he would sign in Atlanta but they're not close to ready to win and that's a factor. St. Louis has come into the discussion, they're ready to win but it's not home and there's no familiarity with the staff there. Still Lester and his team have a St. Louis number. Then there's Chicago, packed with young talent, ready to start competing, one of the top manager's in baseball and the guys that drafted him are in charge. Now it's not home, either full time or time like Boston and Atlanta, and you would assume the number to sign here would be a bit higher than Boston and probably close to the Atlanta number giving the competition window. Would 6 year $150 get it done? I think so. Would the Cubs pay that? I think so. Bottom line I think he signs in Chicago but it would be foolhardy to assume it given all the other suitors. There are other option besides Lester but I believe he's the guy they would pay top dollar to. They miss on him and trades become more likely but it's hardly the end of the world.

Success for 2015 is a team that's a potential buyer at the trade deadline, wins north of 84 games and at least 80% of their player development is on track. Expecting to compete with the Cardinals is an unreasonable expectation. It would be nice, and baseball is a funny game where odd things happen, but the likelihood is somewhere between slim and none. This was a team that lost on purpose for 3 years and is just now heading into phase 2 of one of the most massive, and frankly unconventional, rebuilds in MLB history. If you need a comp the Nationals aren't a bad one from 2008-2012 with win totals of 59,59,69,80 & 98. Compare it to the Cubs first three years of the rebuild under Theo & Jed of 61,66,73 and again looking at a win total in the low to low mid 80's is a reasonable expectation. Comparing them with the Cardials who just won 90 and 97 wins in the past two seasons is not.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So there has been some talk that to counter the comfort Jon Lester might feel about a return to Boston that the Cubs need to get creative in a contract in addition to overpaying a bit. One thing that's being suggested is a front loaded deal with an opt out. What do you think about this; you basically give him the offer that Scherzer turned down in Detroit of 6 years $144 million but you structure it like this: 2015- $32 million, 2016- $32 million, 2017- $25 million (Lester opt out kicks in), 2018- $25 million, 2019- $17 million, 2020- $15 million. For the cubs this works because you're overpaying in the early years where you can easily afford it with cost controlled players all over the field and for Lester in the middle of the deal you give him a chance to bank on himself. If at 34 years old he's still a viable TOR pitcher, which is possible with a left hander, you let him decide if he could get better than a 3 year $57 million dollar deal or stay with the Cubs. If he stays and he's decent you're probably close to market value on him and if he leaves well you look elsewhere and get younger, or maybe some of those arms deep in the system are starting to pay off. I'd do it if I were Jed & Theo and I'd do it if I were Jon Lester. Provided of course Boston doesn't get crazy and go 6/$150 which I don't think they will.

 

[brett05]

So there has been some talk that to counter the comfort Jon Lester might feel about a return to Boston that the Cubs need to get creative in a contract in addition to overpaying a bit. One thing that's being suggested is a front loaded deal with an opt out. What do you think about this; you basically give him the offer that Scherzer turned down in Detroit of 6 years $144 million but you structure it like this: 2015- $32 million, 2016- $32 million, 2017- $25 million (Lester opt out kicks in), 2018- $25 million, 2019- $17 million, 2020- $15 million. For the cubs this works because you're overpaying in the early years where you can easily afford it with cost controlled players all over the field and for Lester in the middle of the deal you give him a chance to bank on himself. If at 34 years old he's still a viable TOR pitcher, which is possible with a left hander, you let him decide if he could get better than a 3 year $57 million dollar deal or stay with the Cubs. If he stays and he's decent you're probably close to market value on him and if he leaves well you look elsewhere and get younger, or maybe some of those arms deep in the system are starting to pay off. I'd do it if I were Jed & Theo and I'd do it if I were Jon Lester. Provided of course Boston doesn't get crazy and go 6/$150 which I don't think they will.

Theo does not do opt out deals.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Theo does not do opt out deals.

He hasn't in the past, in this case I would think they would consider it if it lands them their top target which I think it would. It's really the opposite of the Stanton deal where Loria is paying below market early on the promise that he will build a champion along with an opt out and ridiculous money if he doesn't make good on his word. I'm not claiming an original idea here this has been bandied about a little bit on Twitter and other places I just put numbers to it. The consensus seems to be that the Cubs are going to offer more money but he'll sign with Boston because they can contend in 2015 and 2016 where the Cubs are iffy for the first year and still no sure thing for the second. This kind of deals pays him for that risk and guarantees more money. This also creates an option where they can still sign a free agent TOR guy next year but in that case they could backload a deal and everything works out in the wash.

 

[brett05]

He hasn't in the past, in this case I would think they would consider it if it lands them their top target which I think it would. It's really the opposite of the Stanton deal where Loria is paying below market early on the promise that he will build a champion along with an opt out and ridiculous money if he doesn't make good on his word. I'm not claiming an original idea here this has been bandied about a little bit on Twitter and other places I just put numbers to it. The consensus seems to be that the Cubs are going to offer more money but he'll sign with Boston because they can contend in 2015 and 2016 where the Cubs are iffy for the first year and still no sure thing for the second. This kind of deals pays him for that risk and guarantees more money. This also creates an option where they can still sign a free agent TOR guy next year but in that case they could backload a deal and everything works out in the wash.

That assumes that the Boston initial offer is their only offer. Right now Boston is the only offer so no reason to compete against themselves especially with the good relationship both sides have with each other.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Hey we're all a bunch of guys blowing hot air on the internet and sometimes I think that even applies to the guys that are supposed to know this stuff. Boston supposedly made that offer last Thursday and it started to hi the rumor-sphere Tuesday night. The Cubs may very well have made an offer, I'd be a little surprised if they didn't. Best guess? This guy wants to go back to Boston in the worst way and is waiting for them to step up to the plate. The rumored details of the offer seem a bit low, between $110-$120 million over 6, but do make sense when you consider that they offered $70 million over 4 years just 5 months ago. Will they actually make their final offer double the money and 1/3 more in years? Seems unlikely but it also seems like somewhere in that range is the Cubs limit for his services. If Boston makes their final offer 6 years $130 million and the Cubs counter with $140 million over the same term where does he sign? My money would be on Boston. I've been starting to think that's why Theo has been quoted more than once as saying guys sign for the most money 99% of the time. Some have interpreted that as cover if they just won't go that high but I'm starting to think that he believes that more money won't necessarily get it done over the Red Sox so afterwards he could say "hey we topped their offer but he was comfortable in Boston". That's why I think you have to be creative, if not an opt out some kind of sweetener.

 

[brett05]

The problem is $10 million while more doesn't make up for the difference in talent to me. If the Red Sox offer 6/130 then the Cubs have to be at at least 6/156 or 7/175 to be a better deal than the Red Sox

 

[CSF77]

The problem is $10 million while more doesn't make up for the difference in talent to me. If the Red Sox offer 6/130 then the Cubs have to be at at least 6/156 or 7/175 to be a better deal than the Red Sox

7:11pm: The Red Sox have shown a willingness to continue negotiating after their initial offer, reports Rob Bradford of WEEI.com.

4:44pm: Boston’s offer to Lester is in the $110-120MM range over six years, according to Cafardo (on Twitter). While that’s a notable step up in terms of their offer from last offseason, it’s still less than most expect Lester to accept.

11:28am: The club has indeed extended an offer to the Sandoval, tweets Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe.

10:00am: Boston is also lining up an offer for third baseman Pablo Sandoval after his visit with the club yesterday, Sean McAdam of CSNNE.com reports.

The Lester offer is “aggressive” and is of at least five years in duration, McAdam adds.

7:29am: The Red Sox have an offer on the table to free agent lefty Jon Lester, according to a report from Gordon Edes of ESPNBoston.com. Lester is expected to take his time considering the proposal, and still has several other clubs with significant interest to explore.

The are at 110-120 right now over 6 years. Basically 20 mil per. I've said it would take 25 mil per to sign him. But if the Cubs went 22.5 mil per that would be a 135 mil offer. That would be my starting point going up to 25 mil per max. After that point you look at adding another year.

 

[CSF77]

Cubs lost on their 2nd big ticket in Martin. Now they should up the anti with Lester while Bo-Sox are entertaining 2 big tickets and seem to be trying to lowball Lester. They go 150 mil offer sheet Sox would be forced to either give up and stick with Panda and a lesser pitching option (Shields) or match and give up on Panda.

 

[brett05]

Panda and Shields for the same money as Lester? Give me the two.

 

[chibears55]

Theo does not do opt out deals.

Also heard the cubs are not going to front or back load the deal either.. whatever they agree to will be paid out evenly over the yrs.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The problem is $10 million while more doesn't make up for the difference in talent to me. If the Red Sox offer 6/130 then the Cubs have to be at at least 6/156 or 7/175 to be a better deal than the Red Sox

I think the talent difference only matters in 2015. I think the Cubs will very likely be a better club than Boston in 2016.

 

[CSF77]

Reportedly it was a 20 mil per for 6 years. They were willing to go up with it but that offer is below what is expected to sign him. B-Sox are hoping he will come back at a lower than market value.

Cubs should stick with a 22.5 offer at 6 years with a 7 year 25 mil per offer cap. Or a 175 mil signing. This offer would get into Max Scherzer's offer. So if they are willing to spend that much then they should debate if they want to spend on Max instead.

End of the day right now I believe they will go after Jonny Gomes and Jason Hammel. Both should cost around 10 mil. That covers LF platoon and a #3/4 starter. Depending on what we consider Hendricks better or worse than Hammel. Payroll would be at 45 mil pre arb cases. not offer Wood and Ruggiano. Then sign Strop, Wright, Valbuena, Coghlan, Doubtont, Arrieta and Castillo. This should cost around 20-25 mil. So total 70 mil. Add 25 mil to Lester and you are looking at a 95 mil payroll. This includes eating Jackson's deal. This puts a decent team on the field with a flexible payroll. I expect them to cap at 120 mil so they could add another impact player at the deadline.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Reportedly it was a 20 mil per for 6 years. They were willing to go up with it but that offer is below what is expected to sign him. B-Sox are hoping he will come back at a lower than market value.

Cubs should stick with a 22.5 offer at 6 years with a 7 year 25 mil per offer cap. Or a 175 mil signing. This offer would get into Max Scherzer's offer. So if they are willing to spend that much then they should debate if they want to spend on Max instead.

End of the day right now I believe they will go after Jonny Gomes and Jason Hammel. Both should cost around 10 mil. That covers LF platoon and a #3/4 starter. Depending on what we consider Hendricks better or worse than Hammel. Payroll would be at 45 mil pre arb cases. not offer Wood and Ruggiano. Then sign Strop, Wright, Valbuena, Coghlan, Doubtont, Arrieta and Castillo. This should cost around 20-25 mil. So total 70 mil. Add 25 mil to Lester and you are looking at a 95 mil payroll. This includes eating Jackson's deal. This puts a decent team on the field with a flexible payroll. I expect them to cap at 120 mil so they could add another impact player at the deadline.

They're not going to have to eat the Jackson deal as there's quite a bit of interest in him from teams that are pretty much looking at the law of averages and figuring he can't as bad as he's been the last couple of years. What you're going to have to do is take a bad contract. Fortunately the Cubs have stated an unequivocal no to Cleveland regarding Nick Swisher. I think that brings the Michael Bourn deal back on the table and I'd make that deal straight up for Jackson tomorrow. If that doesn't happen there will be another bad contract swap offered.

 

[Boobaby1]

Also heard the cubs are not going to front or back load the deal either.. whatever they agree to will be paid out evenly over the yrs.

Not directing at you, but their is absolutely no reason to front or backload anything if you are the Cubs. They made this flexibility for a reason, so they could absorb signings like this. Theo also is on the record as saying that sometimes, you just have to bet on the future meaning when the TV deal and advertising kicks in the money will be there. He is a little more in tuned than we are, and he has numbers (some projected) at his fingertips on that stuff.

To say that the Cubs need to penny pinch on any free agent is truly laughable considering the 20 million (I think) that was distributed to teams and never spent, the Tanaka money that was never spent, and the Soriano money as well as all of the rest of the players like Shark, Villy, and others that are no longer on the books. With all of that, it is still far too low of a payroll if the Cubs are anything less than 110 million with this much youth on the team.

Not saying it has to be spent all this year, but I think you know what I mean.

 

[Boobaby1]

They're not going to have to eat the Jackson deal as there's quite a bit of interest in him from teams that are pretty much looking at the law of averages and figuring he can't as bad as he's been the last couple of years. What you're going to have to do is take a bad contract. Fortunately the Cubs have stated an unequivocal no to Cleveland regarding Nick Swisher. I think that brings the Michael Bourn deal back on the table and I'd make that deal straight up for Jackson tomorrow. If that doesn't happen there will be another bad contract swap offered.

Not necessarily. You don't have to take a bad contract. You could eat half of his remaining contract, and save that 6 million per year and toss it on to a Lester deal if they choose to, or basically pay for Johnny Gomes if that's what they choose. Wada and Hendricks more than offset E-Jax as far as innings and wins, so basically, you could get Johnny Gomes, and have the two aforementioned pitchers in the rotation for the same amount of money that you are paying E-Jax annually.

I know their would be a team out there that would take E-Jax for 6 million per year, and the Cubs might even get a low-level prospect like Corey Black in return.

At worst, E-Jax could assume Villanueva's role in the pen, and by virtue of not having to find another long relief guy, they then save themselves that headache too, although this seems to be the least probability.

 

[CSF77]

Payroll is at 35 mil with him. I don't see the need to barter with him. if they do fine. I do not expect anything of quality in return.

 

[chibears55]

Not directing at you, but their is absolutely no reason to front or backload anything if you are the Cubs. They made this flexibility for a reason, so they could absorb signings like this. Theo also is on the record as saying that sometimes, you just have to bet on the future meaning when the TV deal and advertising kicks in the money will be there. He is a little more in tuned than we are, and he has numbers (some projected) at his fingertips on that stuff.

To say that the Cubs need to penny pinch on any free agent is truly laughable considering the 20 million (I think) that was distributed to teams and never spent, the Tanaka money that was never spent, and the Soriano money as well as all of the rest of the players like Shark, Villy, and others that are no longer on the books. With all of that, it is still far too low of a payroll if the Cubs are anything less than 110 million with this much youth on the team.

Not saying it has to be spent all this year, but I think you know what I mean.

The thought process was more so on them possibly front loading the contract to keep payroll available for these prospects down the road..


i personally feel they could be comfortable with payroll at 120 if it brought in a few players that could help them win

 

[brett05]

EJax is not wanted by anyoen for performance. you can get anyone making league minimum to pitch as well or better than EJax now. The only way teams look at EJax is to get out of an even worse contract.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Yes and no on Jackson. The contract swap would be on the hope of both clubs that a change of scenery would jump start underperforming players. Jackson's contract isn't too terrible to swallow and if he came even close to his career numbers and ate some innings that could serve a purpose for a contending club and it helps that he's a good clubhouse guy. I still think Cleveland will one back to the Bourn swap when they realize no one wants Swisher.