You're the GM (Game)

[beckdawg]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2015/11/ba-reports-the-cubs-may-be-favorites-for-cuban-lefty/

 

[TC in Mississippi]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2015/11/ba-reports-the-cubs-may-be-favorites-for-cuban-lefty/

I love that they're picking up arms all over the place from every avenue they can find.

 

[beckdawg]

I love that they're picking up arms all over the place from every avenue they can find.

Yeah, they are really using IFA well....but then there's the dodgers who've spent $80 mil after taxes and what not on IFA's....this year..... that's fucking ridiculous. You have to imagine MLB is going to do SOMETHING to change that after this year because as much as a sham as the Cubs and yankees have made the IFA the past couple of years the dodgers spending this year is on another planet.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

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

Holy Christ - Edwards, Hendricks AND Almora? I didn't realize Inciarte is such a stud. That's a pretty big package considering all three should have major league careers.

 

[beckdawg]

Holy Christ - Edwards, Hendricks AND Almora? I didn't realize Inciarte is such a stud. That's a pretty big package considering all three should have major league careers.

He's not worth that I don't think. I mean I like Inciarte and suggested he was a name no one was mentioning like... a month ago. However, I think you'd have trouble getting much more than a McKinney for him. He's a lot like Peter Bourjos IMO. The angels traded him and Grichuk for Freese and Salas. It's not a 100% accurate comparison as Bourjos was 26 and had 4 years of MLB experience where as Inciarte is 2 years younger and has 2 years fewer experience.

The bigger question is whether or not Arizona would want to trade him. I think they'd prefer to deal Tomas first. And if they do deal him I believe they are looking to add more pitching.

 

[CSF77]

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.

Japanese hurler Kenta Maeda has requested that his Japanese club, the Hiroshima Carp, make him available to major league organizations through the posting process, as Yasuko Yanagita of Hochi Shimbun first reported on Twitter.

Maeda spun 206 1/3 innings of 2.09 ERA pitching last year. While he’s not a huge strikeout pitcher — he’s never topped 8.1 K/9 over a single season — Maeda is no slouch in that department. And he features impeccable control, with an excellent 1.9 BB/9 walk rate for his career.

It remains to be seen whether the NPB organization will make the highly-regarded right-hander available, as Kyodo News reports (paywall link, h/t to MLB.com’s Joey Nowak). Hiroshima’s general manager Kiyoaki Suzuki said that Maeda’s “request might be granted,” indicating that he’d likely “decide on a course of action around the end of next week.”

If the Carp follow the wishes of their staff ace, the rules provide that the posting team must set a release fee of no more than $20MM. Any team willing to meet that price is permitted to negotiate with the player in an attempt to work out a contract within a thirty day window from the date of posting. The release fee is only due if a deal is struck.

The 27-year-old Maeda figures to take up a prominent place in the winter’s starting pitching market if he is made available. With Yu Darvish and Masahiro Tanaka serving as recent examples of the ability of top Japanese starters to transition to the big leagues, there should be no shortage of interest.

It would be surprising if Hiroshima sets the release fee at anything short of the $20MM maximum. MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes ranked Maeda 14th on his list of the top fifty free agents, predicting that the Japanese star would command a total commitment (including the fee) of five years and $80MM — putting him right alongside quality MLB starters such as Jeff Samardzija, Mike Leake, and Wei-Yin Chen in expected earning power.

 

[CSF77]

Kaplin has been saying the Cubs are wanting 2 starters. 1 that fits a number 2 profile. Most likely means they use Hendricks and either Baez or Soler to Atl or Clevland. 2nd arm would be Lackey. Seems he is favored. I believe it is the Lester connect and the fact they do not want to pay market value for Shark.

Also they believe that Heyward can play CF and are looking at a 5/100 mil offer.

To create payroll space they could trade Montero. Something to do with upgrading the catcher.

Now on Lackey. I could see it as a cheaper option as long he is not the only add. Say they use Soler and Hendricks to Clevland for Carriso (sp) then use Lackey to give more innings on the back end of the rotation.

On Heyward. I doubt he will low ball himself.

Trading Montero? I don't see how that makes the team better. He was really good last year and I feel it would end up taking 5 steps backward with the rotation. So not buying that at all.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Heyward will get 8-years and $200M. He will laugh at a 5-year/$100M deal. Heck, every team in baseball wants to sign him to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Heyward will get 8-years and $200M. He will laugh at a 5-year/$100M deal. Heck, every team in baseball wants to sign him to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure Heyward will. I think he's probably worth it but ATM I'm not seeing huge suitors who will pay that.

2015 opening day payrolls
1. Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040
2. New York Yankees $219,282,196
3. Boston Red Sox $187,407,202
4. Detroit Tigers $173,813,750
5. San Francisco Giants $172,672,111
6. Washington Nationals $164,920,505
7. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083
8. Texas Rangers $142,140,873
9. Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500
10. Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600
11. St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458
12. Seattle Mariners $119,798,060
13. Chicago Cubs $119,006,885
14. Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072
15. Chicago White Sox

Doubt anyone lower goes after a $200 mil contract. Boston is out for obvious reason. Dodgers are too unless they deal Puig and even then i'm not so sure. Yankees are cutting costs and have Beltran. Giants have Pence. Nats have Harper. Tigers ahve JD Martinez. M's have Cruz. Bluejays have Bautista. Rangers have Choo. Cincy has Bruce and is selling. Philly is selling. So there's not a ton of teams with interest. Angels reportedly have interest. St. Louis makes sense. Chicago makes sense. However, if for whatever reason those teams go another way the market could dry up a bit on him.

That being said, i doubt he'd take a $100 mil 5 year deal. Just saying I'm not sure the huge market is out there that people are talking about.

 

[beckdawg]

10:00pm: Frisaro now tweets that the Marlins and Mariners could be aiming to complete a larger deal than just Ozuna for a pitcher.

9:48pm: MLB.com’s Joe Frisaro tweets that the Marlins are “fielding a lot of calls” on Ozuna currently, adding that he’s not sure anything is imminent. MLB.com’s Greg Johns also adds (Twitter link) that it “doesn’t sound like anything is imminent.”

9:20pm: Clark Spencer of the Miami Herald cites multiple sources in reporting that the Marlins could be looking at Elias and/or Karns (Twitter link).

8:55pm: The Mariners and Marlins are working on a trade that would send outfielder Marcell Ozuna from Miami to Seattle, reports ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick (Twitter link). If consummated, the move would continue what has been an incredibly active offseason for new Seattle GM Jerry Dipoto.

 

[chibears55]

Kaplin has been saying the Cubs are wanting 2 starters. 1 that fits a number 2 profile. Most likely means they use Hendricks and either Baez or Soler to Atl or Clevland. 2nd arm would be Lackey. Seems he is favored. I believe it is the Lester connect and the fact they do not want to pay market value for Shark.

Also they believe that Heyward can play CF and are looking at a 5/100 mil offer.

To create payroll space they could trade Montero. Something to do with upgrading the catcher.

Now on Lackey. I could see it as a cheaper option as long he is not the only add. Say they use Soler and Hendricks to Clevland for Carriso (sp) then use Lackey to give more innings on the back end of the rotation.

On Heyward. I doubt he will low ball himself.

Trading Montero? I don't see how that makes the team better. He was really good last year and I feel it would end up taking 5 steps backward with the rotation. So not buying that at all.

50 Yo John Lackey? No thanks, id rather take my chances with Samardzija over him...
Cubs dont need to continue bringing in Lester old Exmates to keep him happy..

Ill be very disappointed if they don't bring in 2 solid starters that could be a part of this team for next 5 + years


I could see Heyward taking a 4 or 5 yr deal or maybe one with a mutual option at the end.. he just 26, so he could have another big FA off season at 30 or 31..

 

[CSF77]

50 Yo John Lackey? No thanks, id rather take my chances with Samardzija over him...
Cubs dont need to continue bringing in Lester old Exmates to keep him happy..

Ill be very disappointed if they don't bring in 2 solid starters that could be a part of this team for next 5 + years


I could see Heyward taking a 4 or 5 yr deal or maybe one with a mutual option at the end.. he just 26, so he could have another big FA off season at 30 or 31..

More to do with cash spent. They want to spend 4/60 on Shark. Shark wants his market value which is closer to 100 mil. They could get Lackey for much cheaper and for less years.

Now I feel that they are just trying to bridge to the farm. There are some quality options a few years out and some depth that is in development. In a few years the system should become more top heavy with quality arms.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

That being said, i doubt he'd take a $100 mil 5 year deal. Just saying I'm not sure the huge market is out there that people are talking about.

I think the $100 mil number is silly. My best guess is that if they were to make him an offer it might be 6/$150 with an opt out after 4 which would be a gamble on only spending $100 mil.. The Cubs take the injury risk but Heyward gets a second bite at FA at 31 years old which almost no one gets. Early on there was speculation that was exactly what he wants. It really wouldn't surprise me at all as I don't think anyone is offering 8/$200 as some had thought.

 

[czman]

I'm not sure Heyward will. I think he's probably worth it but ATM I'm not seeing huge suitors who will pay that.

....Snip....

Doubt anyone lower goes after a $200 mil contract. Boston is out for obvious reason. Dodgers are too unless they deal Puig and even then i'm not so sure. Yankees are cutting costs and have Beltran. Giants have Pence. Nats have Harper. Tigers ahve JD Martinez. M's have Cruz. Bluejays have Bautista. Rangers have Choo. Cincy has Bruce and is selling. Philly is selling. So there's not a ton of teams with interest. Angels reportedly have interest. St. Louis makes sense. Chicago makes sense. However, if for whatever reason those teams go another way the market could dry up a bit on him.

That being said, i doubt he'd take a $100 mil 5 year deal. Just saying I'm not sure the huge market is out there that people are talking about.

I don't know what he is looking for. There are reports he wanted a shorter deal so he could cash in again. Is that really true? I still am not even sure I know what his per year value is right now. He does not have a lot of power, and RF has been a power position. He is not a leadoff hitter. Most of his value is with his defense. Can he get 30 mill a season? I don't think so. I think he is exactly what the Cubs need and that OF defense is underrated many. I don't think he is worth 30 mill annually. I think 18-20 is fair, but I tend to under price. If he gets 22-25 mill annually how many years does he want?

It would not surprise me to see him take a 5 year deal worth ~125 million. I think that is an overpay. I just don't know if he wants to take the 8-10 year deal.

Also the Angels are the team to watch out for. They have overpaid in years multiple times. I could see them doing something over the top in this one.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I don't know what he is looking for. There are reports he wanted a shorter deal so he could cash in again. Is that really true? I still am not even sure I know what his per year value is right now. He does not have a lot of power, and RF has been a power position. He is not a leadoff hitter. Most of his value is with his defense. Can he get 30 mill a season? I don't think so. I think he is exactly what the Cubs need and that OF defense is underrated many. I don't think he is worth 30 mill annually. I think 18-20 is fair, but I tend to under price. If he gets 22-25 mill annually how many years does he want?

It would not surprise me to see him take a 5 year deal worth ~125 million. I think that is an overpay. I just don't know if he wants to take the 8-10 year deal.

Also the Angels are the team to watch out for. They have overpaid in years multiple times. I could see them doing something over the top in this one.

5/$125 would be a steal. He was a 6 fWAR player last year. Even if you think he's a 5 fWAR player average over 5 years your talking an accumulated 25 fWAR in that period. There's fluctuation right now in what a player is worth per win with numbers anywhere from $6 mil to $10 mil but even if the low end that $125 mil is undervalue. That's only $5 mil per win. Now 6/$150 is still undervalue but if you give him an opt out after 4 where, if he's healthy, he'll almost certainly get another huge payday then he might just take that. All of this of course is on the low end of the $ per win scale. I think his market is limited a bit because, with his less than gaudy power numbers and average, he is much more valuable to sabermetric based organizations than ones that are more traditionally oriented. It'll be fascinating to see how it shakes out.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

I think the $100 mil number is silly. My best guess is that if they were to make him an offer it might be 6/$150 with an opt out after 4 which would be a gamble on only spending $100 mil.. The Cubs take the injury risk but Heyward gets a second bite at FA at 31 years old which almost no one gets. Early on there was speculation that was exactly what he wants. It really wouldn't surprise me at all as I don't think anyone is offering 8/$200 as some had thought.

That's the thing, when FA starts rolling almost always the deals exceed what was previously speculated. People say Zimmerman will get $125M but I wouldn't be surprised to see him end up with $140M.

With Heyward only being 26, I think he will get $200M or very close to it. It's so rare that a player of his quality hits FA at such a young age. I'd be absolutely shocked if he got less than $175M. Somebody will pay him big money.

Every year FA just seems to have such inflated deals. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see Shark get $95M -- which is insane. I wouldn't touch him for $95M.

 

[czman]

5/$125 would be a steal. He was a 6 fWAR player last year. Even if you think he's a 5 fWAR player average over 5 years your talking an accumulated 25 fWAR in that period. There's fluctuation right now in what a player is worth per win with numbers anywhere from $6 mil to $10 mil but even if the low end that $125 mil is undervalue. That's only $5 mil per win. Now 6/$150 is still undervalue but if you give him an opt out after 4 where, if he's healthy, he'll almost certainly get another huge payday then he might just take that. All of this of course is on the low end of the $ per win scale. I think his market is limited a bit because, with his less than gaudy power numbers and average, he is much more valuable to sabermetric based organizations than ones that are more traditionally oriented. It'll be fascinating to see how it shakes out.

I think people have stop looking at the total and just look at the yearly. 5 at 125 or 6 at 150 is the same damn thing when you are looking at a mid 20s player. It is all about the annual and how many years he wants. How many years he wants in in question. I don't think he can get 30 million a season, nothing surprises me though. If he takes 3 years ~75 million that is not a steal. The team is still paying the same and gets fewer years. When it comes to Heyward his youth makes anything less than 4 years a negative for the team. I think most teams will want 5 or 6 years so they can get all of his prime.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think people have stop looking at the total and just look at the yearly. 5 at 125 or 6 at 150 is the same damn thing when you are looking at a mid 20s player. It is all about the annual and how many years he wants. How many years he wants in in question. I don't think he can get 30 million a season, nothing surprises me though. If he takes 3 years ~75 million that is not a steal. The team is still paying the same and gets fewer years. When it comes to Heyward his youth makes anything less than 4 years a negative for the team. I think most teams will want 5 or 6 years so they can get all of his prime.

You have to look at the total because you can't pay a 6 WAR player $36-$60 million per year. The market won't bear that obviously. The longer term deals help even that out. You look at Jon Lester as a great example of this. He got a 6 year/$155 mil deal. You need roughly 19 WAR over the course of the deal to make that worthwhile. He was a 5 WAR in 2015, figure the same in 2016, close in 2017 say 4 WAR and then as he declines you only really need 5 WAR over 3 seasons which you would assume he will exceed making the contract plus value. It's the only way to make sense of $/win.

I'm kind of confused over why 3/$75 wouldn't be a steal though. If you have prospects coming, and the Cubs have a deep pipeline, you always want to shed the payroll and insert lower priced players. Say you sign Heyward to that contract and by 2018 he's RF but you have Eloy Jimenez ready to come up. All of a sudden you've save $24.5 million off that position and you can make up the production at another position you have a hole at. In and ideal world teams would sign every free agent to 3 year deals while keeping their young players under control for 7.

 

[brett05]

You have to look at the total because you can't pay a 6 WAR player $36-$60 million per year. The market won't bear that obviously. The longer term deals help even that out. You look at Jon Lester as a great example of this. He got a 6 year/$155 mil deal. You need roughly 19 WAR over the course of the deal to make that worthwhile. He was a 5 WAR in 2015, figure the same in 2016, close in 2017 say 4 WAR and then as he declines you only really need 5 WAR over 3 seasons which you would assume he will exceed making the contract plus value. It's the only way to make sense of $/win.

I'm kind of confused over why 3/$75 wouldn't be a steal though. If you have prospects coming, and the Cubs have a deep pipeline, you always want to shed the payroll and insert lower priced players. Say you sign Heyward to that contract and by 2018 he's RF but you have Eloy Jimenez ready to come up. All of a sudden you've save $24.5 million off that position and you can make up the production at another position you have a hole at. In and ideal world teams would sign every free agent to 3 year deals while keeping their young players under control for 7.

In an ideal world, everyone would be a free agent after every year.

 

[czman]

You have to look at the total because you can't pay a 6 WAR player $36-$60 million per year. The market won't bear that obviously. The longer term deals help even that out. You look at Jon Lester as a great example of this. He got a 6 year/$155 mil deal. You need roughly 19 WAR over the course of the deal to make that worthwhile. He was a 5 WAR in 2015, figure the same in 2016, close in 2017 say 4 WAR and then as he declines you only really need 5 WAR over 3 seasons which you would assume he will exceed making the contract plus value. It's the only way to make sense of $/win.

I'm kind of confused over why 3/$75 wouldn't be a steal though. If you have prospects coming, and the Cubs have a deep pipeline, you always want to shed the payroll and insert lower priced players. Say you sign Heyward to that contract and by 2018 he's RF but you have Eloy Jimenez ready to come up. All of a sudden you've save $24.5 million off that position and you can make up the production at another position you have a hole at. In and ideal world teams would sign every free agent to 3 year deals while keeping their young players under control for 7.

First, any WAR over 2.5 and the WAR to salary value starts to break down. The further you push away from 3 the less value it actually has. I think using Heyward's salary based on WAR is out of place. He has too much WAR in defense and he is too high for it to hold up. I would rather not use that. We may disagree on this, I just don't think it holds up for him.

the value of signing a high dollar FA is not only what they add on the field. It is also that they lock down a position for years. This should allow you to use other resource for something different. If you get Heyward for 3 years you can't offset that dollar cost by trading minor leagues who fill the same role to fill other needs that were neglected by the money spent on RF.

This is why I think teams should want 6 years. A 1 year deal is a stop gap. 2 can be. 3 is too long. it is too hard to project players 3 years out so it is not a stop gap measure.

One of the biggest values to the Cubs in signing Heyward is they can trade Solar. So Heyward has the ability to improve RF and then by proxy improve pitching. If you get Heyward for 3 years it makes little sense because the value of moving Solar is not as great.

Heyward and his age are what make a 3 year deal bad. If you can get a 30 year old pitcher for 3 years that is good. A 26 year old you want for longer. The goal by a team should always be to capture as many of the peek years as possible without taking on the non-peek years.