Winter Meeting (Trades)

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
What would the Cubs get for Baez though? And if they trade him does that mean they go hard for Heyward?

Also interesting that the article discusses the financial aspect of the Cubs:

1) Lack of business commitment despite the increasing revenues

2) Potential bitterness by Epstein that the Cubs aren't spending like the Red Sox
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
Also interesting that the article discusses the financial aspect of the Cubs:

1) Lack of business commitment despite the increasing revenues

2) Potential bitterness by Epstein that the Cubs aren't spending like the Red Sox

More Wittenmyer/Sun Times agenda bullshit. He knows the debt service constraints and didn't even mention them. He also knows that Theo understands this. With the Lackey signing the payroll sits roughly at $137 million for 2016, on the high end of the $130-$140 predicted. If he's right about Castro not being moved it will likely end up in the mid $140's unless Hammell is moved in a pitching deal. The deal they made to buy the team was absurd and they probably regret it now but it's constraints are what they but the Sun Times likes to stir shit up.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
If there are financial restrictions on the team due to the sale, why not just come right out with them?
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
More Wittenmyer/Sun Times agenda bullshit. He knows the debt service constraints and didn't even mention them. He also knows that Theo understands this. With the Lackey signing the payroll sits roughly at $137 million for 2016, on the high end of the $130-$140 predicted. If he's right about Castro not being moved it will likely end up in the mid $140's unless Hammell is moved in a pitching deal. The deal they made to buy the team was absurd and they probably regret it now but it's constraints are what they but the Sun Times likes to stir shit up.

So then you're saying they can't go after Heyward?
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
If there are financial restrictions on the team due to the sale, why not just come right out with them?

They've talked about limitations. If you mean why not specifically say what they are, I mean does any team in the majors want to talk about their books?Think you just open yourself up to unneeded scrutiny. Theo himself said after the Price signing that they just couldn't compete with that level of signing at this time.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
If there are financial restrictions on the team due to the sale, why not just come right out with them?
I believe it had been mentioned many times that Zell wouldn't sell the team to anyone without agreeing to those restrictions for his tax purposes. ..
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
They would have to move contract to add at this point.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind the cubs are freeing $11 mil from Jackson's deal next season. If you're talking about Heyward in the $20 mil range, that's only adding $9 mil tot he budget next season. Now Heyward could get more but they may also have more room to spend than we think. For example, they reportedly offered Price $22 mil/season. Lackey got $16 mil/season. So there's $6 mil they have right there and you have to imagine they have another $15 mil/season saved up for CF which is likely why they couldn't go higher on a pitcher.

Not saying it would be easy to sign Heyward but I think that if they choose to do it they can make it happen. And if they are trading for a pitcher, makes a lot of sense to include Hammel in that trade anyways.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
They've talked about limitations. If you mean why not specifically say what they are, I mean does any team in the majors want to talk about their books?Think you just open yourself up to unneeded scrutiny. Theo himself said after the Price signing that they just couldn't compete with that level of signing at this time.

I believe it had been mentioned many times that Zell wouldn't sell the team to anyone without agreeing to those restrictions for his tax purposes. ..
It sounds like something you do to placate the fan base but never really prove it. Smart move really.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,624
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
And that deal couldn't go on forever. What was it? Seven years of the Zell nonsense? So there are two left including this one?
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
Not necessarily. Keep in mind the cubs are freeing $11 mil from Jackson's deal next season. If you're talking about Heyward in the $20 mil range, that's only adding $9 mil tot he budget next season. Now Heyward could get more but they may also have more room to spend than we think. For example, they reportedly offered Price $22 mil/season. Lackey got $16 mil/season. So there's $6 mil they have right there and you have to imagine they have another $15 mil/season saved up for CF which is likely why they couldn't go higher on a pitcher.

Not saying it would be easy to sign Heyward but I think that if they choose to do it they can make it happen. And if they are trading for a pitcher, makes a lot of sense to include Hammel in that trade anyways.

If you accept on face that they are somewhere at $135-$137 mil right now and you move Hammel's $9 mil you can likely still get Heyward at $22 mil AAV. You could backload it slightly and have his 2016 number at $118 or so and you're right in what appears to be the budgetary range. If the rumors that Baez could go for someone like Jake Odorizzi and a reliever Hammel would make sense. Matt Moore would be less of a fit if you plan on a Heyward push because he's arb eligible now and would eat up some of that savings.

With this much young talent you don't need a huge payroll to make a contender. If they did get Odorizzi and trotted out Arrieta, Lester, Lackey, Odorizzi, Hendricks and filled the CF hole with Heyward, or even Span or Fowler, and the only piece you moved was BAez that would be a hell of an offseason. I've fully expected that Soler would have to be moved but that's looking less certain. Ain't over yet though...
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
And that deal couldn't go on forever. What was it? Seven years of the Zell nonsense? So there are two left including this one?

I could look it up if you want but i believe the cubs can buy zell out and be done with it in 2017. Might be 2019 too. I get a bit confused with that and the tv rights which I know are 2019.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,624
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
I could look it up if you want but i believe the cubs can buy zell out and be done with it in 2017. Might be 2019 too. I get a bit confused with that and the tv rights which I know are 2019.
Thanks. I thought it was 2017. Whatever the date, it can't happen soon enough.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
I could look it up if you want but i believe the cubs can buy zell out and be done with it in 2017. Might be 2019 too. I get a bit confused with that and the tv rights which I know are 2019.

My understanding is that it expires in October 2019 but that they can refinance and get out of that in October 2017. Maybe not so coincidentally most feel that's the team's target to have signed the TV deal which would begin in 2020.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
My understanding is that it expires in October 2019 but that they can refinance and get out of that in October 2017. Maybe not so coincidentally most feel that's the team's target to have signed the TV deal which would begin in 2020.

Does this mean they would wait till 2020 to spend the big bucks ?
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
No, it just means they have deal imposed limits which ties revenue to budget. With expected 3 million attendance and new revenue streams coming with success the budget will inch up every year. This year will be a guide. If they do end up at $140 million you can expect that to rise commensurate with revenue. If you're expecting a $200 million budget, which they might reach eventually, they're going to need to be through with these constraints for that.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago
BREAKING: #Dodgers agree to acquire Chapman from #Reds for two prospects. Deal is pending review of medical records, sources say.

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS 35s35 seconds ago
Chapman deal is agreed to with dodgers. 2 prospects to reds. (not seager, urias or deleon). Pending medicals

Nice to have him outside the division
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
If there are financial restrictions on the team due to the sale, why not just come right out with them?

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/kapman/ricketts-forced-tribune-take-huge-debt-cubs-purchase

Zell and the Tribune Company required anyone who was interested in buying the team to heavily finance their purchase and to allow the Tribune Company to maintain a five percent stake in ownership for several years going forward. One prospective buyer who quickly withdrew from the process told me "it was the most complex financial transaction he had ever seen," with another telling me that he wasn't willing to jump through all of the hoops that the deal required. However, the Ricketts family stayed the course before eventually reaching their breaking point. They told the Tribune and Zell in the summer of 2009 to either make a deal or they, too, were going to withdraw from the process. At that point, according to sources, the deal quickly moved towards completion.

"Minimizing tax liability with debt financing was the No. 1 goal of Tribune Company management and Sam Zell in selling this asset. That alone made it a tough deal for many of the interested parties to handle. Add in the fact that the world markets were on fire so financing was very difficult to obtain at that time. Whoever was going to buy the Cubs -- from Mark Cuban, to John Canning, to any of the other interested parties -- was going to have to play under those rules. That narrowed the playing field quickly. Plus, do you really think that [MLB commissioner] Bud Selig, who is one of the smartest guys around, would have allowed the Cubs, a premier franchise, to be operating under a risky structure? No way," a former ownership candidate told me.

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2014/3/29/5520408/fan-foils-by-the-numbers-sam-zell

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/...d-the-syncing-of-baseball-and-business-plans/

The reason it's not more public is most people don't publicly comment on their owner's requirements (Zell still owns 5% I believe). I mean, let's be clear here, Sam Zell is probably the largest anchor on this franchise

- He stupidly re-upped the Cubs TV deals when there was a huge demand/market for a premium channel
- He forced any owner to carry long term debt that the Cubs can't really pay down so Zell could make money on the sale
- The Cubs, due to that debt, have strict payroll constraints as to how high they go when they absolutely don't need them in place

The vast majority of fans refuse/don't understand the constraints that the Cubs have to act under
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 3m3 minutes ago
Players who know Jansen do not believe he would react well if he lost closer’s job with #Dodgers set to acquire Chapman. Stay tuned.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
So the Dodgers now have two closers in their walk years (Chapman and Jensen). They understand that the Nationals of last year are a perfect example of what happens when a team acquires a closer it doesn't need. Sure sounds like the Dodgers are going to use at least one of them to flip them for the SP they need.
 

Top