Your assumption is that they can sign Shark. I mean for all we know he want's $25 mil per year. Before the season he supposedly wanted Bailey money. They offered him $500k less than Bailey money and he turned them down. Are we seriously suggesting he's holding out for $500k a year and willing to go through all this trade crap rather than stay in a town he says he loves all over a measly $500k? At this point, I'm guessing he is asking for well more than $17 mil or at least enough that he's not coming down to that. And given what I've suggested about his performance/pay vs other players with better performance and what they received the cubs are very unlikely to move up from $17 mil and rightly so.
I don't see that Tanaka was the pipe dream you make it out to be. The cubs reportedly offered 6 years $120 mil plus the $20 mil posting fee. The yankees gave him 7 years $155 mil plus the posting fee. You're talking about roughly $2.14 mil annually difference. The cubs reportedly offered Sanchez 5 years $77.5 mil. He signed for 5 years $80 mil least according to ESPN. I think they are figuring the 5 years plus the $5 mil buyout option year. rather than counting the 6th year. Either way, for at least the first 5 years of the deal $77.5 mil over 5 years is more money than he actually received(5 years $75 mil). The only difference was the 6th option year. My guess is that's what sealed the deal for the Tigers and for whatever reason the cubs chose not to match or even if they had he wanted to go back to the tigers vs playing for a rebuild. On Ryu, the cubs were around $6 mil short posting fee with the old rules. you're correct about Darvish but clearly the Rangers placed far more value on him than anyone else because the cubs were supposedly second and all the other teams were in the $25 mil range if memory serves.
To suggest they can't sign people is rather absurd. I clearly showed they had likely $50 mil to spend if the so choose. That's more than each of the past 3 years including the $40ish they ended up spending in 2013 with far more needs. You may not even be able to use the argument that they are shit and no one will want to play for a shit team anymore. After a 9-17 April they are 27-29 and that's before you even mention the fact that they have good young hitters ready to reach the majors.
As for who they can sign, why can't they sign Scherzer? The cubs legitimately can offer him $25 mil if they choose with no need to involve the Ricketts adding payroll. That would only put them in the $85 mil payroll range. Who's realistically going to offer him more than that? Remember the yankees are paying a 50% penalty on every player they sign which means at $25 mil they are paying $37.5. Dodgers would be the other big guess but they are already paying Grienke and Kershaw $55 mil for the foreseeable future. You're other big market teams will likely be in to some extent talking about the Tigers, Red Sox, Angels, Rangers, Giants, and Phillies. However, many of those teams are already heavily leveraged in starters. Giants owe Cain and Lincecum $49 mil next year. Phillies owe Lee and Hamels $49 mil. The Tigers are paying Verlander and Sanchez $44 mil next year. I can see an argument for the Angels given that they are only paying Weaver and Wilson $37 mil. I can also see an argument for the Red Sox but they also have a boat load of high minors starters that are well regarded so they also could do nothing other than bring back Lester at a similar $25 mil. And finally you have the Rangers. I'd say they are a possibility but you're also talking about adding $25 mil to a $133.5 mil payroll with basically nothing coming off the books unless they let Rios walk. Also keep in mind at the moment of those teams only the Cubs, Red Sox, Rangers, and Philly can sign him with out also giving up a first round pick. Minor issue obviously but it's additional cost.
Perhaps Scherzer doesn't want to play for the cubs for whatever reason. We don't know that now. But the fact remains they can compete monetarily. Also, Why can't they sign a second tier starter like Shields with him? He probably will get a QO from the Royals because they are likely to lose him. And with his 3.93 ERA this year you're likely looking at a similar contract to what Garza got with a QO on him. Point here being, there's any number of guys they can sign all of which don't require any more Ricketts money than 2012/2013.
As for being lucky with cheap signings, it's been 3 years straight. At some point it stops being luck and starts being the thing. How many years did Dave Duncan turn shit into gold for the cardinals? Good pitching coaches work wonders. And that's without consideration of giving someone like Grimm or Ramirez a chance at the rotation. I'd personally be a bit dubious about Grimm in the rotation but he does have a 3.50 ERA and is only 25. Ramirez has been a revelation in the pen with a 1.25 ERA and is also 25. Both were starters coming up in the minors. As well you also have rather large issue of what they get when they trade Shark. You're almost assuredly talking about at least a AA pitcher who might be MLB ready by next year.
