James Shields

[TC in Mississippi]

The Cubs dodged a bullet.

No doubt.

 

[DanTown]

I agree with your last part but your first part is wrong. Shields is $5 million this year and $11 each of the two remaining years. Way less than Danks or LaRoche. It's really not that much money at all.

10 million for the next two years is the fifth highest salary on the team and would be about 8% of 120M payroll just wasted. The Sox are where they are because they continually don't have the money to fill all their holes that missed draft picks and failed development has led them to. Now you're giving them less money to spend and still having the same holes as Shields can't even be trusted to get outs as a starter.

I'm sorry, the Shields trade (if he say never came back to being a starter) could be an un mitigated disaster on par with any bad deal you want to name. A team short on funds gave up a fairly significant amount of their future cap to trade for a SP who might be out of baseball soon.

The Cubs signed Jackson to a deal with more money but at least they got two years of mostly league average from Jackson.

 

[cubsmann]

Theo has stated numerous times, that he wants to build an organization that puts itself in contention year in and year out. The playoffs are unpredictable, and it would be foolish to trade away a lot in order to "go for it".

That's not to say you can't make moves to strengthen this year's team. But many fans have this "just get ONE" attitude, and fortunately Theo is not looking at it that way.

Yeah Im with you on this one. This is not a one time "go for broke" kind of team. This is a team that's going to be good for easily the next 10 years considering how young the team is. Russell, Bryant, Contreras, Almora Jr, Soler, Baez are all 24 or younger, Rizzo is 26. The team is going to dominate the NL for years to come and its about fucking time. This team makes so much money and has such great fans that deserve to win. No more of this "put a shitty team out there and hope enough drunks want to come party at Wrigley". This team is for real and they're being run like the first class organization they are. Epstein should be given a lifetime contract because he obviously knows how to draft and build a team from scratch because in 2012 the Cubs were at ground zero. Now they are the top dog in the NL...

 

[brett05]

10 million for the next two years is the fifth highest salary on the team and would be about 8% of 120M payroll just wasted.

Not wasted. Was worth the risk. It's really not a lot of money at all.

The Sox are where they are because they continually don't have the money

That's a myth

to fill all their holes that missed draft picks and failed development has led them to.

Yes both Chicago teams have been abysmal in producing players until the past few years.

Now you're giving them less money to spend and still having the same holes as Shields can't even be trusted to get outs as a starter.

If you would research the roster and the dollars they are spending as well as my post on Laroche/Danks they have more money now than before.

I'm sorry, the Shields trade (if he say never came back to being a starter) could be an un mitigated disaster on par with any bad deal you want to name. A team short on funds gave up a fairly significant amount of their future cap to trade for a SP who might be out of baseball soon.

It would be miles away from being one of the worst deals ever. There is no cash shortage and there is no cap.
The Cubs signed Jackson to a deal with more money but at least they got two years of mostly league average from Jackson.

 

[brett05]

Yeah Im with you on this one. This is not a one time "go for broke" kind of team. This is a team that's going to be good for easily the next 10 years considering how young the team is.

That's about a five year window before you have to pay everyone $25+ million a year each.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

That's about a five year window before you have to pay everyone $25+ million a year each.

True but if Theo is in charge some of the guys will be traded for younger players and some new organizational strengths will unfold, SS looks like it could be loaded based on some international signings currently in the low minors for instance. That said I think 5 years is the current window and you can't look beyond it with certainty.

 

[DanTown]

That's about a five year window before you have to pay everyone $25+ million a year each.

If Heyward doesn't opt out then that's a problem but the Cubs are already paying that much money to their team right now

Heyward - 21 million
Lester - 25 million
Lackey - 16 million
Montero - 14 million
Edwin Jackson - 12.5 million

That's the Cubs only running about $175 million in payroll. By the time the new guys need contracts the Cubs will have a new TV deal and all the ball park built up.

Also, the Cubs can let a guy like say Baez walk and replace him with Gleyber Torres or let Zobrist walk and replace him with Ian Happ, etc. This isn't the Marlins where the team has to win it while everyone is arbitration and once you get through that window there's no way to afford a team.

 

[DanTown]

Not wasted. Was worth the risk. It's really not a lot of money at all.

Um, if he's so bad he can't pitch then it's wasted. They're paying Shields almost what JA Happ got and Happ is 8-3 with a 3.41 ERA. The Sox are 0-8 when Danks/Johnson/Shields have started. There's the difference in the division right there.

Again, you can determine it "worth the risk" because you were buying the name but his stuff has been down for the past two years and there was a potential for this type of trade when you accounted for him leaving a pitcher's ballpark to come to a hitter's ballpark. James Shields being this bad might be a surprise but him pitching poorly/below replacement level isn't.

That's a myth

The Sox, like every other non Dodger/Yankee team in the league has a budget. The more you spend on bad players to not play, the less you have to spend on the other players. It's funny how they didn't learn from the Denks deal the potential risk for taking long term years in pitchers that haven't been good in at least two years.

Yes both Chicago teams have been abysmal in producing players until the past few years.

Cool story. This conversation has nothing to do with the Cubs. Whether or not the Cubs do develop players doesn't change the fact the Sox simply don't develop enough home talent to have to find 20 guys (many hopefully high impact) in FA/Trade.

If you would research the roster and the dollars they are spending as well as my post on Laroche/Danks they have more money now than before.

If you DFA a guy, you still owe him his money so the Danks thing doesn't matter. LaRoche they're saving 12 million this year which will soon be replaced on the balance sheet with paying James Shields 10 million. Assume they can run a 120 million or even 125 million payroll. 80 million of it goes to Shields, Sale, Abreu, Robertson, Cabrera, Quintana, Eaton, Duke, Fraizer. They have 50 million dollars to spend and the only "cheap" guys they really have that are good players are Anderson, Rodon.

This isn't the kind of team that should have traded for a high priced, older SP because this year's team wasn't close enough to contention. The Shields deal made sense if the team had just ONE hole to be fixed (4th/5th starter) and the rest of the team was good enough to win 90+ games. That's just not true.

It would be miles away from being one of the worst deals ever. There is no cash shortage and there is no cap.

The list of teams that guaranteed 27 million over 3 years to a guy who from the first moment they got him would say that he might not be good enough to play is incredibly short. They would have been DRASTICALLY better off not dealing for James Shields and that wasn't hard to predict when the trade happened. Sox fans bought the name (kind of like the Padres did in FA last year) instead of the stuff he was throwing.

 

[brett05]

If Heyward doesn't opt out then that's a problem but the Cubs are already paying that much money to their team right now

Heyward - 21 million
Lester - 25 million
Lackey - 16 million
Montero - 14 million
Edwin Jackson - 12.5 million

That's the Cubs only running about $175 million in payroll. By the time the new guys need contracts the Cubs will have a new TV deal and all the ball park built up.

Also, the Cubs can let a guy like say Baez walk and replace him with Gleyber Torres or let Zobrist walk and replace him with Ian Happ, etc. This isn't the Marlins where the team has to win it while everyone is arbitration and once you get through that window there's no way to afford a team.

Your example is nothing close to what I was speaking of. today the Cubs have one guy earning $25 million. In five years if they keep things in tact it will be closer to 10 guys.

Guys like Torres and Happ won't be coming up. 1) They will be ready in less than five years and 2) They are likely to be traded at deadlines for the needed pieces to make the push. The Cubs could run a $300-350 million payroll in 5 years but I don't see them becoming the Dodgers or the Yankees. It's not in the MO.

 

[cubsmann]

That's about a five year window before you have to pay everyone $25+ million a year each.

so what? you think the Cubs can't afford it? There's no salary cap and I can almost guarantee that not all of them will be making $25M per year. Maybe Rizzo and Bryant maybe lke $15M but the rest of them won't command $25M per year from any team. You have to understand that only the top 1% of players are making that kind of money. What are we paying Zobrist, $10M? And he was a big free agent. I don't think anyone will be paying Almora Jr, Contreras, Baez, or Russell any $25M. I could see maybe $10M but that's even pushing it...And besides when that day comes if the Cubs continue to develop talent they can replace any of them cheaply...

 

[DanTown]

Your example is nothing close to what I was speaking of. today the Cubs have one guy earning $25 million. In five years if they keep things in tact it will be closer to 10 guys.

Guys like Torres and Happ won't be coming up. 1) They will be ready in less than five years and 2) They are likely to be traded at deadlines for the needed pieces to make the push. The Cubs could run a $300-350 million payroll in 5 years but I don't see them becoming the Dodgers or the Yankees. It's not in the MO.

Torres is 19. Happ is 21. Torres coming up at 24 is 5 years away and Happ coming up at 24 is three years away.

The Cubs won't need to have a payroll of $350 million because they won't do the deals you're talking about them doing. They'll deal pieces but even if they deal Happ they have a bunch of other young hitters in the fold. I mean this is literally in FIVE YEARS. Who knows who they sign in IFA or who they draft in the next five years. The point is the brain trust is still here and I trust them to replace guys as they need to instead of having to sign everyone to huge massive deals.

The other thing is the Cubs might be able to sign some of their other guys (i.e Baez) to deals that buy out arbitration and give them flexible team option years at the end (similar to what they did with both Rizzo and Castro).

And again, the Cubs will have massive revenue streams (hotel, new plaza, TV deal) that simply are not open to them now. I cannot imagine anyone in the Cubs front office being afraid of being able to afford guys in years 2020 on. By then, they'll have the revenue streams the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox have that allow those teams TO have the giant payrolls.

The "it isn't in their MO" is stupid because this ownership is differently than the previous ones and you can look no further then the massive amount of money they've put in to the stadium and surrounding areas in ways that previous owners never did to see how they think about the team differently than the Tribune/Zell did.

 

[brett05]

so what? you think the Cubs can't afford it? There's no salary cap and I can almost guarantee that not all of them will be making $25M per year. Maybe Rizzo and Bryant maybe lke $15M but the rest of them won't command $25M per year from any team. You have to understand that only the top 1% of players are making that kind of money. What are we paying Zobrist, $10M? And he was a big free agent. I don't think anyone will be paying Almora Jr, Contreras, Baez, or Russell any $25M. I could see maybe $10M but that's even pushing it...And besides when that day comes if the Cubs continue to develop talent they can replace any of them cheaply...

1) You said ten years and it's five.
2) Rizzo and Bryant playing for $15 million per? You think they'll fall off the map so quick?
3) Take a look at what the top earners were getting five years ago at such a young age. You gotta understand that the Cubs right now are positioned to have something very, very, rate. And with that, very, very expensive
4) It's not an issue of cap, it's about business
5) All four of those guys I would project to be better than Ben.

 

[brett05]

Torres is 19. Happ is 21. Torres coming up at 24 is 5 years away and Happ coming up at 24 is three years away.

Those guys aren't five years away. 2-3 at the most.

The Cubs won't need to have a payroll of $350 million because they won't do the deals you're talking about them doing.

Then the window is smaller than we all thought.

They'll deal pieces but even if they deal Happ they have a bunch of other young hitters in the fold. I mean this is literally in FIVE YEARS. Who knows who they sign in IFA or who they draft in the next five years. The point is the brain trust is still here and I trust them to replace guys as they need to instead of having to sign everyone to huge massive deals.

You can't hit the "lotto" every time you play.

The other thing is the Cubs might be able to sign some of their other guys (i.e Baez) to deals that buy out arbitration and give them flexible team option years at the end (similar to what they did with both Rizzo and Castro).

Probably will with one or two. No doubt. It's why I capped it at 10. But your two guys 1) needed security as a cancer survivor and 2) basically a below average to average player at best.

And again, the Cubs will have massive revenue streams (hotel, new plaza, TV deal) that simply are not open to them now. I cannot imagine anyone in the Cubs front office being afraid of being able to afford guys in years 2020 on. By then, they'll have the revenue streams the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox have that allow those teams TO have the giant payrolls.

1) Those streams aren't going straight to the roster
2) They aren't getting a Dodger/Yankee TV Deal. Those deals are gone and for good reason.

The "it isn't in their MO" is stupid because this ownership is differently than the previous ones and you can look no further then the massive amount of money they've put in to the stadium and surrounding areas in ways that previous owners never did to see how they think about the team differently than the Tribune/Zell did.

I am just speaking of current ownership.

 

[cubsmann]

1) You said ten years and it's five.
2) Rizzo and Bryant playing for $15 million per? You think they'll fall off the map so quick?
3) Take a look at what the top earners were getting five years ago at such a young age. You gotta understand that the Cubs right now are positioned to have something very, very, rate. And with that, very, very expensive
4) It's not an issue of cap, it's about business
5) All four of those guys I would project to be better than Ben.

But who really cares honestly? Are any of us investors in the Cubs and stand to lose money if they flush $250M on payroll? The way I see it the Cubs owe us the fans a dividend for sticking with such a shitty team so long and always packing Wrigley even when they sucked ass. And Im no frat boy who goes to Wrigley with my business associates to drink and act stupid. I have bled for so many years with this team. I was at the Bartman game in 2003 and at game 7 two days later and that shit hurt. I cried like a ***** after game 6 because we were so fucking close. I don't give a shit if the team has to pay every one of those motherfuckers $20M per year.

Oh and I was almost sick that we're paying Jason Heyward $20M a year!!! **** what a waste of money!! That's the shit that has to stop. We didn't really need the guy and he will be sucking from the Cubs' tit for 8 more fucking years. ****!!!!!! We don't need any more overpriced FA's. We just need to lock up the guys we have and were set for the next decade at least.

 

[CSF77]

I don't see payroll going over 200 mil ever.

 

[brett05]

But who really cares honestly? Are any of us investors in the Cubs and stand to lose money if they flush $250M on payroll? The way I see it the Cubs owe us the fans a dividend for sticking ...

So because you threw away more money after bad you should get rewarded? :lol:

We just need to lock up the guys we have and were set for the next decade at least.

You can want the window to be ten years or more but the window is about 5.

 

[brett05]

I don't see payroll going over 200 mil ever.

Did your doctor give you a few months to live? Just the historical economics of the game says that the payroll will be there in 20 years or less.

 

[cubsmann]

So because you threw away more money after bad you should get rewarded? :lol:

Yes actually I do. Don't you think Cubs fans deserve to have a great team on the field? Especially since that fans have never abandoned the team despite having like 4 winning teams in the past 20 years. The organization owes its fans to do everything it can to put an ideal product on the field. We pay a small fortune for tickets every year and never complain and pay 46% more for season tickets this year. I didn't complain, I just sent a check because if I hadn't one of the thousands of people on the waiting list would get my seats.

You can want the window to be ten years or more but the window is about 5.

OK lets say 5, that's potentially 2 or 3 World Series titles in the next 5 years. I would take that any day as would you or any other fan. I don't think the Cubs will lose everything even if they end up having to pay Rizzo and Bryant $20M. Their farm system is so stocked that most of the current players can and will be replaced. How else can you perpetuate a winning team? Even if we don't have to pay Soler and Baez and Russell $20 M they will eventually get old and retire. You have to have a plan in place to keep a winning team in perpetuity. This is what the Yankess and now the Red Sox and the Dodgers have done for years. There no good reason why a team that has been in the league since the beginning shouldn't have a tradition of winning rather than being the "lovable losers". In fact if you run the organization right, the Cubs should be this good forever since they have the second or third biggest revenue stream. Big market teams should dominate the league in a completely unfair and unequal system of revenue sharing. The Cubs aren't the Marlins or the Expos who would have great teams for a year and then lose everyone to free agency. The Marlins have actually won the World Series as have the Diamondbacks which is a disgrace considering they were expansion teams.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Yes actually I do. Don't you think Cubs fans deserve to have a great team on the field? Especially since that fans have never abandoned the team despite having like 4 winning teams in the past 20 years. The organization owes its fans to do everything it can to put an ideal product on the field. We pay a small fortune for tickets every year and never complain and pay 46% more for season tickets this year. I didn't complain, I just sent a check because if I hadn't one of the thousands of people on the waiting list would get my seats.



OK lets say 5, that's potentially 2 or 3 World Series titles in the next 5 years. I would take that any day as would you or any other fan. I don't think the Cubs will lose everything even if they end up having to pay Rizzo and Bryant $20M. Their farm system is so stocked that most of the current players can and will be replaced. How else can you perpetuate a winning team? Even if we don't have to pay Soler and Baez and Russell $20 M they will eventually get old and retire. You have to have a plan in place to keep a winning team in perpetuity. This is what the Yankess and now the Red Sox and the Dodgers have done for years. There no good reason why a team that has been in the league since the beginning shouldn't have a tradition of winning rather than being the "lovable losers". In fact if you run the organization right, the Cubs should be this good forever since they have the second or third biggest revenue stream. Big market teams should dominate the league in a completely unfair and unequal system of revenue sharing. The Cubs aren't the Marlins or the Expos who would have great teams for a year and then lose everyone to free agency. The Marlins have actually won the World Series as have the Diamondbacks which is a disgrace considering they were expansion teams.

Ok a few points:

1) Building an organization that contends year after year has been Ricketts' and Theo's stated goal from day one and judging by the foundation building they've done it appears they're starting to achieve that.
2) I wouldn't speculate on players who aren't going to get huge contracts until 2021. Some might be re-signed, some might be traded for younger players and some might have devastating injuries. The key to the kind of organization you want is to never let your team stagnate. Teams like the Cardinals, who I think are much more of an ideal organizational comp than the Dodgers or Yankees, do that and I think the Cubs will as well.
3) Player salaries are going to get insane after the 2018 FA class. Bryce Harper's people are already floating a 15 year deal worth $750 million or $50 mil AAV. I'm not sure he quite gets there but if his deal doesn't tip the $500 million mark I'll be surprised. Guys like Manny Machado and Andrew McCutchen are probably going to get $30 mil per. Teams are going to have to be very careful with the prices getting that high because the wrong deal can destroy a franchise for more than a decade. Ask the Angels about Pujols or Miami about Giancarlo Stanton and his $325 mil deal and awful numbers. Because of this predicting who might stay or go three years after that is not viable.
4) I don't believe the team owes the fans anything. This is a business and fans have the option of not consuming the product if they don't like it. That said I'm glad Tom Ricketts seems to feel otherwise.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The initial impression on Shields was the Padres were paying for most of it. I thought it was a waste of time given his trending the last 15 months....if you can't fake it in the N.L. in San Diego your done. He seemed done. He had just given up 10 runs in his last 2-3 starts, and showed no signs of life or velocity on any pitches. I mean...I would have ranked him below Danks...which I have been railing on for 5 years. I couldn't believe we actually sent Danks down finally.

If I find out the Sox are left holding 10 million.....jeezus thats desperate. Somebodies job must be on the line...its about damn time.