You're the GM (Game)

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,699
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
I'd prefer Zimmermann over Samardzija as well but it's not like he's an enormous improvement. Again Samardzija had a disastrous year and was a 2.4 fWAR where Zimmermann, in a bit of a down year, was a 3.0 fWAR. Both had career years in 2014 but Samardzija looks more likely to repeat that year than Zimmermann does. Also if you look at their Steamer projections for next year they're nearly identical. Again though, I would prefer Zimmermann given the choice. His career has been remarkably consistent with his FIP always staying in the low to mid 3.0s, again 2014 looks to have been a statistical outlier, and all in all is the safer bet. On the other hand Samardzija has over 100 fewer innings on his arm and would be rejoining a pitching coach that really seemed to have him figured out in 2013 and 2104. In addition both are good ground ball pitchers which plays well in Wrigley, but at his best Samardzija could project to be better. So if you're making the argument of Zimmermann over Samardzija based on sample size and lower risk you would be correct, but if you're making it on Zimmermann being a far superior pitcher the numbers don't bear that out.

You're also making the wrong argument on money. It's not the 2016 money that would be the concern, it's the 2019 money if Price lost velocity a-la Verlander and was a #3 or starter at the time your arb bills are coming due on Bryant, Schwarber and Russell. Now if your argument would be to sign Greinke to 6/$180 based on the fact that his stuff looks to age well, much like Lester btw, (as opposed to Price who's stuff may not) and then roll with having three TOR starters in 2016 deciding now more or less to not sign Arrieta in 2018 or maybe even trade him for younger pitching next offseason, then I'd be with you. That's a sound argument. Probably the same AAV as Price, less risk and frees up Arrieta as a possible trade asset while having the core of an outstanding staff in 2016. In addition you could still trade for a Shelby Miller or a similar pitcher. That doesn't sound like what you're saying though lumping Price, Greinke and Cueto in together due to money. Each have separate strengths and frankly Greinke's most align with the Cubs core values. They just need to think all of this through and I know they are. It's not all about throwing money around to win it's about making sound decisions while, again, staying within organizational values and long term budget. That's what is going to take us to the promised land, if that's what is to be, not making hasty decisions on big money contracts.

If you were just factoring talent Zimmerman is better. But data shows that pitchers that have had TJ tend to lose effectiveness earlier than pitchers that have not. Sure they both have low miles but over a 4-7 year span Shark has a better chance of keeping at 200 IP per every year. Add to it with Shark you are looking at a 3-5 year deal vs a 6-7 for Zimmerman. You get out of the deal while he is at the tail end of his prime vs after his prime. Kinda like Dempster.

I get the risk with Shark. Stuff is good but has not translated to wins but wins/losses are more to do with the team and just dumb luck.

Now to Bears: Shark vs Feldman vs Wood a few years back. Sure the other 2 won more but you have to look at run support to justify that opinion. Add to it Wood at that time was hitting better than most on the line up. Back then the team lacked the ability to generate runs constantly. So having Wood hitting thaty day impacted the line up because it just sucked in general. There should be no team that depends on a pitcher to hit.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
I don't tend to like bWAR honestly. If you look at how they valued Barney's gold glove season in 2012 it seems a tad ridiculous. Fangraphs WAR had him at 2.4 which was slightly above league average which seems fair. Obviously that's not a pitcher case but to me it points to flaws in their entire approach. I believe the difference is less to do with strikeouts and more to do with FIP. That being said FIP does factor in K's fairly heavily because the idea being that walks and K's are two things you control. Fangraphs has his FIP at 3.84 vs 3.40 for Zimmermann which given their relative fWAR average seems about right.

As for the thought process about his k rate, you have to consider how Shark is striking people out. According to pitch f/x his best two pitches have been his slider and his splitter. When he was at his best in 2014, Shark's best pitches were his two seam fastball(1.2 pVAL/C), his slider(1.4), and his spliter(1.0). If you're not familiar basically pVAL/C has 0 as "average" and anything above that is better than average. So presumably if Bosio is working with him again you're going to see him pound the bottom of the zone and that incidentally lead to the lowest ground ball rate of his career. For whatever reason, in 2015 the white sox had him throw his two seam fastball far less(294 pitches vs 803 in 2014). They also had him throw his cutter more(673 vs 446). The other numbers weren't too far out of the range they were in 2014 but that clearly suggest the sox had him approaching things differently.

So, like I said if you think Zimmermann is the better pitcher that's fine. He probably is. Personally, I just don't see that much difference between the two. I don't see Shark falling off due to velocity decline because he's honestly relying on pitches breaking more than his velocity. Where I worry is that you end up giving Zimmermann essentially Cole Hamels contract who's been over 4 fWAR the past 4 seasons and he's just a 3+ fWAR guy. Zimmermann at 6 years $144 mil doesn't make sense to me and maybe he gets that. I can handle Shark on an Ervin Santana deal(4 year $55 mil) or a Matt Garza deal(4 years $50 mil) which given inflation realistically is probably 4 years $60 mil that some are speculating on Shark. Sanchez got a 5 year $80 mil in 2013. Shields got a 4 year $75 mil last offseason. So, given past contracts that seems to be what shark should get. Zimmermann on the other hand is tough to judge because he's probably a better pitcher than the Shark range but i'm not sure he's as good as Lester or Hamels which makes me think he's just good enough that someone's going to over pay him.

The hope with Jeff is that he figures something out. He's always been a high HR pitcher, he's always been a decent SO guy, he's seemingly had better control the past couple of years, he obviously has a little better wear and tear, and he's never won a ton of games (I know wins and losses don't matter but 35-52 the last four years with an ERA of 4.02 doesn't instill a ton of confidence). I have no desire to see how well Shark ages because to me, it's not well. I mean his prime was basically a 4 ERA pitcher. There is no real history that the Cubs/someone can fall back on, he just never took that next step and is what he is. And to me, that's a risk the Cubs can't afford to take. The goal in FA is obviously value but they also can't swing and miss; if Shark is what he was last year, no matter what the Cubs pay, it's a loss. Zimmerman, on the other hand, can be what he was last year and still be a useful member to the rotation and solid #3. Heck, if the Cubs signed Zimmerman last year for 6/132, we'd all be saying how great the value was. He has one year with high HR (basically a terrible August/September) and now it's a risk?

I get the cost is high but there's a reason for that and frankly, your arguments against Zimmerman aren't great. Zimmerman is more dependable, has had more sustained success, has had better years, and he's less SO reliant than Jeff. You get incredibly focused on SO and those stats and your love for them that sometimes blinds you and you miss the biggest picture, which is Jeff struggles with HR and big innings. That's EXACTLY the kind of guy that can get ugly in FA. I wish him the best and hope someone is willing to give him 5/75 but I really hope it isn't the Cubs. Because while I think he may be ok early, I think it's going to get ugly fast.

I simply don't get the "let's roll the dice" option. I get not wanting Price or someone for 6 years at close to 200 million; not wanting Zimmerman to me at a fair 6/120-130ish price seems strange. He's exactly what you want in a 3rd starter: high competence with a chance of being elite.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
If all they want to do is fill a 3 or 4 slot, then they could just easily trade for that guy if it about not spending the money. .

I dont think them being creative is about money, I think it more about who they can move in a deal and possibly moving players to new positions.

Oh, I think it is all about the money. They have a budget to abide by, and there are some rumblings that Montero could be moved. I don't necessarily get that one, but if that is the case, then they are looking to free up money for something.

The question is who do they get for the short term to make them that much better, without jeopardizing the long term goal?

Does anyone else feel that a three team, blockbuster deal involving the Cubs might be coming?
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
I simply don't get the "let's roll the dice" option. I get not wanting Price or someone for 6 years at close to 200 million; not wanting Zimmerman to me at a fair 6/120-130ish price seems strange. He's exactly what you want in a 3rd starter: high competence with a chance of being elite.

If you don't want Shark that's fine. But the cubs seem to have interest in him and there are reasons why. The white sox used him in a different way than the 2014 cubs did. The white sox had the worst team defense in the league according to fangraphs which probably cost both him and Sale 3/4ths a run. Additionally, he was playing in the AL which inflates ERA. If that's not enough reason then remember Billy Beane gave up a top 10 prospect to acquire him last season and Beane's not exactly a bad judge of talent either. So, this isn't just a case of cubs fans building him up to be something he isn't. Smart front offices see talent in him. Most fans probably would have been fine with him at the reported 5 year $85 mil the team offered him prior to trading him. A year later we're talking probably 4 years $60 mil and it seems like the majority dislike the idea for various reason.

As for being too focused on strikeouts, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. That being said, people in the stats community buy into k/bb rates and those people are getting hired by actual major league teams. Also, as it pertains to Shark, I've barely even mentioned strikeouts so clearly I'm not as focused on them as you seem to think.

Either way, if it were simple as zimmermann being a no brainer, washington would have gave him the extension he wanted. Not trying to beat Zimmermann down because as I said he makes sense at the right price too. But you paint the picture as though there's 0 questions with Zimmermann. I'm not going to bother getting into them because it honestly doesn't matter. Both have value at the right price. However, historically long term deals for pitchers end poorly. So, I'm always taking a 4 year deal over a 6 year deal all things being equal. Incidentally, streamer projects Shark at 12-11 with a 7.39 k/9 2.12 bb/9 and a 3.85/3.88 ERA/FIP with 2.7 fWAR next season while projecting Zimmermann at 12-11 with a 7.28 k/9 1.82 bb/9 and a 3.57/3.80 ERA/FIP with 2.8 fWAR. I just don't see enough difference between the two to warrant the difference in contracts they are likely to get.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
If you don't want Shark that's fine. But the cubs seem to have interest in him and there are reasons why. The white sox used him in a different way than the 2014 cubs did. The white sox had the worst team defense in the league according to fangraphs which probably cost both him and Sale 3/4ths a run. Additionally, he was playing in the AL which inflates ERA. If that's not enough reason then remember Billy Beane gave up a top 10 prospect to acquire him last season and Beane's not exactly a bad judge of talent either. So, this isn't just a case of cubs fans building him up to be something he isn't. Smart front offices see talent in him. Most fans probably would have been fine with him at the reported 5 year $85 mil the team offered him prior to trading him. A year later we're talking probably 4 years $60 mil and it seems like the majority dislike the idea for various reason.

As for being too focused on strikeouts, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. That being said, people in the stats community buy into k/bb rates and those people are getting hired by actual major league teams. Also, as it pertains to Shark, I've barely even mentioned strikeouts so clearly I'm not as focused on them as you seem to think.

Either way, if it were simple as zimmermann being a no brainer, washington would have gave him the extension he wanted. Not trying to beat Zimmermann down because as I said he makes sense at the right price too. But you paint the picture as though there's 0 questions with Zimmermann. I'm not going to bother getting into them because it honestly doesn't matter. Both have value at the right price. However, historically long term deals for pitchers end poorly. So, I'm always taking a 4 year deal over a 6 year deal all things being equal. Incidentally, streamer projects Shark at 12-11 with a 7.39 k/9 2.12 bb/9 and a 3.85/3.88 ERA/FIP with 2.7 fWAR next season while projecting Zimmermann at 12-11 with a 7.28 k/9 1.82 bb/9 and a 3.57/3.80 ERA/FIP with 2.8 fWAR. I just don't see enough difference between the two to warrant the difference in contracts they are likely to get.

I agree with all of this except that he's not signing at 4/$60 mil. The 5/$85 mil is fascinating because I think that's exactly what he'll get. If they think they can get him for less than that the Cubs will pursue him aggressively, if they think it's more they'll back off. Nightengale predicted 5/$90 a week or so ago. A lot depends on Zimmermann's market. If he's at 6/$120 I think Shark stays at or under that 5/$85. If the market on JZ looks like, say 6/$132, then I think there might be a lot of teams in on Samardzija creating a bit of a bidding war.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,699
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
6/120 is fair for Zimmerman. He is a risk of falling off the table due to being a TJ pitcher. I worry after he hits 33 of becoming a injury risk or a dead arm case.

Shark should at max get 5/85. 4/60 should be his floor. He should be durable but that will be his calling card. Go out there and pitch 6-7 innings. Some days solid others off due to a pitch not working and him compensating. I believe he needs to add a slider to his arsonel and work on a change up that can break either way. That would play off his fastball better vs sitting on a cutter.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
If you don't want Shark that's fine. But the cubs seem to have interest in him and there are reasons why. The white sox used him in a different way than the 2014 cubs did. The white sox had the worst team defense in the league according to fangraphs which probably cost both him and Sale 3/4ths a run.
This isn't so much about last year but rather the years previous. Let's throw last year out, here is Jeff 2012-2014

24-39
3.70 ERA
3.50 FIP
8.8 SO/9
2.6 BB/9
1.0 HR/9
1.209 WHIP

That's his PRIME OF HIS CAREER. You're basically saying "I think a 31-34 pitcher will be as good as he was at 27-29". There is no room for him to get worse with those numbers. He had fairly elite SO numbers (he was 16th in K/9 2012-2014 among SP) yet still had a pedestrian FIP/WHIP numbers. If it was a better pitcher who had a bad year (ala Zimmerman), I'd feel different about committing four/five years to him. I mean let's compare his 27-29 to Matt Garza.

Garza
25-23
3.62 ERA
3.54 FIP
8.4 SO/9
2.7 BB/9
1.0 HR/9
1.232 WHIP

Garza at age 30 has a decline to about 6.9 K/9 (what Jeff did last year) and he dropped the HR to keep his FIP down and then at age 31, he just gave you 4.94 FIP over 148 innings. Why are we over thinking this? There's a ton of history of that says pitchers who heavily rely on SO don't age well. You're caught up on one year, I'm talking about how he's going to PROGRESS as he ages. Good luck with the hope that a SP in his mid 30s SO as many guys as he did in his late 20s.

Additionally, he was playing in the AL which inflates ERA. If that's not enough reason then remember Billy Beane gave up a top 10 prospect to acquire him last season and Beane's not exactly a bad judge of talent either. So, this isn't just a case of cubs fans building him up to be something he isn't. Smart front offices see talent in him.

Beane made that deal because he went all-in. And even still, teams make terrible trades. The Jays traded Syndegard/D'Arnaud for Travis Dickey. The Orioles traded Strop/Arrieta for Scott Feldman. Saying that because Billy Beane traded for him means Samardzija will defy aging is stupid. Billy Beane also has a ton of high risk trades that didn't work out so Samardzija/Hammel for Russell/McKinney is just another one. Also, he was getting Jeff at a fairly controlled price for 18 months at the peak of his prime; the Cubs are deciding whether to invest four/five years OUT of his prime.

Most fans probably would have been fine with him at the reported 5 year $85 mil the team offered him prior to trading him. A year later we're talking probably 4 years $60 mil and it seems like the majority dislike the idea for various reason.

The reason I would have been in on that deal was it would have been a fair price for a #3 in the prime of his career, I believe it bought out his arbitration year too so it would have been only until he was 33 where as now the Cubs are investing and getting year 31+, and to be honest, I think there was more hope for Samardzija taking another small step at 29/30 that he simply hasn't taken. Two years is a ton of time for a p

As for being too focused on strikeouts, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. That being said, people in the stats community buy into k/bb rates and those people are getting hired by actual major league teams. Also, as it pertains to Shark, I've barely even mentioned strikeouts so clearly I'm not as focused on them as you seem to think.

When you quote three stats that are heavy SO stats (K/9, K/BB, FIP) as a reason to sign a pitcher, it paints PART of the picture. I'm not saying these stats aren't important because they are; I'm saying these stats aren't end all/be all stats. Also, it's not really great when you EXCLUDE his most previous year and say that Don Cooper must be the worst pitching coach in the world. I have no problem with stats; I have a problem when people cherry pick a certain stat group to paint part of a picture.

Either way, if it were simple as zimmermann being a no brainer, washington would have gave him the extension he wanted. Not trying to beat Zimmermann down because as I said he makes sense at the right price too. But you paint the picture as though there's 0 questions with Zimmermann. I'm not going to bother getting into them because it honestly doesn't matter. Both have value at the right price. However, historically long term deals for pitchers end poorly. So, I'm always taking a 4 year deal over a 6 year deal all things being equal. Incidentally, streamer projects Shark at 12-11 with a 7.39 k/9 2.12 bb/9 and a 3.85/3.88 ERA/FIP with 2.7 fWAR next season while projecting Zimmermann at 12-11 with a 7.28 k/9 1.82 bb/9 and a 3.57/3.80 ERA/FIP with 2.8 fWAR. I just don't see enough difference between the two to warrant the difference in contracts they are likely to get.

I don't paint the picture that Zimmerman is riskless, he's significantly less risky in the long term and he's had a much higher ceiling than Jeff. I get the idea that a guy with TJ probably doesn't have a ton of time left in the arm but I also don't love the idea of investing money in a guy who relies heavily on SO to be effective. SO don't age well. Zimmerman has shown an ability to be effective without heavy SO numbers and if he does get SO, then he's an elite SP.

Also, never a great idea to use STEAMER projections when two guys badly missed STEAMER projections the previous year. It's hard for prediction models to account for years like the ones Jeff/Jordan had. Was it aging? Luck? Something it can't see (i.e pitching style/injury)?

I just don't get the idea that Samardzija goes right back to being what he was at 28 at age 31. And that if you're wrong with either guy, Samardzija is most likely to be the guy who you can't get starts out of.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
You gotta compare by innings, not by age. Shark's 500-1000 innings as a starter compared to (insert name) 500-1000 inning pitched.
 

DJMoore_is_fat

New member
Joined:
Aug 26, 2012
Posts:
4,143
Liked Posts:
1,792
What do you guys think it would take the snag Charlie Blackmon from the Rockies? He'd be an excellent fit in CF, no?
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
6/120 is fair for Zimmerman. He is a risk of falling off the table due to being a TJ pitcher. I worry after he hits 33 of becoming a injury risk or a dead arm case.

Shark should at max get 5/85. 4/60 should be his floor. He should be durable but that will be his calling card. Go out there and pitch 6-7 innings. Some days solid others off due to a pitch not working and him compensating. I believe he needs to add a slider to his arsonel and work on a change up that can break either way. That would play off his fastball better vs sitting on a cutter.

It's going to be interesting how the pitching dominoes fall. Unlike last year when it was very clear who was bidding on Lester and Scherzer early on there's no clear indication this year. The Giants surprised by getting in on Lester late and the Nationals did the same with Scherzer and actually signed him. This year nothing's clear cut. With Price's camp quickly denying that Toronto is his first choice after that rumor appeared yesterday I think they might be the frontrunner for him after all and his people didn't want to lose leverage. If the glut of pitchers keeps the Price and Greinke deals under $200 million the prices on everyone else should go down as well. If they end up where everyone has always thought at $230 & $210 respectively it will cut down on their suitors and the other guys will be very expensive. Cueto is the wild card in all this to me. I have no idea what he'll sign for.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
What do you guys think it would take the snag Charlie Blackmon from the Rockies? He'd be an excellent fit in CF, no?

I think they want a better defender than Blackmon which is really limiting their choices. There has a been a lot of buzz on the D-Backs Ender Inciarte lately and he'd be a great fit but I don't see the trade fit at all. They need TOR pitching badly so if they were going to move him you would think that would be the consideration.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
What do you guys think it would take the snag Charlie Blackmon from the Rockies? He'd be an excellent fit in CF, no?

I had posted that about a month ago. Now I have changed from it.

If I were going to trade for someone, I believe Inciarte would be one I would target because of his age and upside, and hope that he could build on his OBP to be a legitimate lead-off man.

Of course, Inciarte would cost more, but I think he would be worth it in the long run, and I would think that Almora and pitchng or Baez would have to be a part of a package to acquire him if it went down, and also I like Enders versatility to play all three outfield spots if needed.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
I had posted that about a month ago. Now I have changed from it.

If I were going to trade for someone, I believe Inciarte would be one I would target because of his age and upside, and hope that he could build on his OBP to be a legitimate lead-off man.

Of course, Inciarte would cost more, but I think he would be worth it in the long run, and I would think that Almora and pitchng or Baez would have to be a part of a package to acquire him if it went down, and also I like Enders versatility to play all three outfield spots if needed.

They have some OF depth so I think they would be OK with moving Inciarte but again it's fit that I don't see. They have a huge glut of MOR/BOR starters in the majors and minors with no TOR answers and this is a club that wants to compete now. They tried to Shelby Miller from Atlanta but the Braves asked for Pollock. Another team looking for outfield help might take Inciarte and one of their minor league pitchers for a high end MOR with potential to be a TOR. They've been linked to Zimmermann and Samardzija also so they're competitors of the Cubs for the same pitchers and Inciarte is one of their main chips they'd be willing to move.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
Oh, I think it is all about the money. They have a budget to abide by, and there are some rumblings that Montero could be moved. I don't necessarily get that one, but if that is the case, then they are looking to free up money for something.

The question is who do they get for the short term to make them that much better, without jeopardizing the long term goal?

Does anyone else feel that a three team, blockbuster deal involving the Cubs might be coming?

Ehhhh budget, only ones worried about their budget are fans

and rumors , i dont listen to them because most are made up
Like the one yesterday with Price saying he prefers Toronto then you get someone saying their source says the Jays not looking to go after the top FA starters and then a tweet from Price himself saying he never said that he prefers Toronto.

Montero thing is supposedly they want to upgrade as was rumored...
First of all , not sure who they would find available to upgrade with...
2nd, i thought the reason they got him was because he was one of the best defenders...
Finally. . Doubt anyone takes on his salary, so cubs would be eating some of that if they did move him.. so, they wouldn't be freeing up much money. ..


3 team blockbuster deal... hmmmm sounds creative ?
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
They have some OF depth so I think they would be OK with moving Inciarte but again it's fit that I don't see. They have a huge glut of MOR/BOR starters in the majors and minors with no TOR answers and this is a club that wants to compete now. They tried to Shelby Miller from Atlanta but the Braves asked for Pollock. Another team looking for outfield help might take Inciarte and one of their minor league pitchers for a high end MOR with potential to be a TOR. They've been linked to Zimmermann and Samardzija also so they're competitors of the Cubs for the same pitchers and Inciarte is one of their main chips they'd be willing to move.

Would you move lets say Edwards, Hendricks, and Villanueva or Almora if it netted you Inciarte?
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
Ehhhh budget, only ones worried about their budget are fans

and rumors , i dont listen to them because most are made up
Like the one yesterday with Price saying he prefers Toronto then you get someone saying their source says the Jays not looking to go after the top FA starters and then a tweet from Price himself saying he never said that he prefers Toronto.

Montero thing is supposedly they want to upgrade as was rumored...
First of all , not sure who they would find available to upgrade with...
2nd, i thought the reason they got him was because he was one of the best defenders...
Finally. . Doubt anyone takes on his salary, so cubs would be eating some of that if they did move him.. so, they wouldn't be freeing up much money. ..


3 team blockbuster deal... hmmmm sounds creative ��

OK, a few things. When you're looking at possibilities you always have to keep budget in mind. You say only the fans care about it? I see most fans not caring about it. It matters.

As far as rumors, yeah most are made up this time of year but if you've paid attention over the years you can kind of judge where the wind is blowing. Price's camp immediately denying the Toronto story tells me that the Blue Jays are very much in on him but a story like that hurts his leverage. If they know he wants to come there they're going to try to get him for less money. You hear one of these every year and the players make the same noises. If his people had said nothing I would have thought it was bullshit like 90% of what's out there.

On the Montero front, no I don't think he'll be traded. Somebody has to catch and he had a good year. If the Cubs really are throwing his name out it's to gauge value and wondering if they could bring Contreras up early. Where I disagree is that they would have to eat salary. He's making $14 million for the next 2 years and is a 2 fWAR player which is right in the middle of the $12-$16 million salary range for that win total. With some feeling that fWAR value over this offseason will jump to $8-$10 million per win he's actually closer to a bargain than overpaid.

On another front some outlets are reporting that the Cubs and Samardzija are close to a 4 year $68 million deal. No idea if it's true but makes some sense. Overpay, or at least pay close to full value, a little on AAV for a shorter deal.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
Would you move lets say Edwards, Hendricks, and Villanueva or Almora if it netted you Inciarte?

Probably although I'd rather Villanueva than Almora. The issue I see there is they have no use for Hendricks. Between the big club and the minors they have 6 guys with about his same ceiling.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,699
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
What about Maeda?
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
What about Maeda?

I think that between posting fees + cost to sign + added stress to the arm (Japeneese pitchers only go once a week versus every five days) that signing Pan-Asian pitchers doesn't seem like a great investment.
 

Top