I keep wanting to say “in the wake of the Cubs’ failed Anibal Sanchez pursuit,” but that phraseology doesn’t seem particularly appropriate just yet.

A day after Anibal Sanchez chose to return to the Detroit Tigers for five years and $80 million, each of the major media outlets has a version of the events of Thursday and Friday, which read essentially the same as I’d pieced together yesterday in my immediate reactions.

In short, here’s what happened: the Cubs had been pursuing Sanchez, quietly, for about a month. The Tigers were stuck on a four-year, $48 million offer, and the Cubs had identified Sanchez as a good near-and-long-term fit for where the organization is trying to go. So, eventually, they went to five years and $75 million for Sanchez, and sent Theo Epstein and Tom Ricketts to Miami on Thursday to persuade him to sign. From there, Sanchez’s agent – armed with a five-year offer, supported by media reports – went back to the Tigers to jolt them loose from their weak offer. The Tigers then went to five years, and the Cubs countered (the time-line on that part is a little fuzzy, and it may not have been quite this back-and-forth-y – but you’re getting the gist) by upping their five-year offer to $77.5 million – which was their ceiling. The Tigers then upped the ante to $80 million, and the deal was done.

In the aftermath, the narrative developing in each of those Chicago media write-ups (ESPNChicago, Tribune, Sun-Times, CSNChicago) generally follows the same track:

  • The Cubs are clearly willing to spend on the “right” players.
  • The Cubs aren’t content to sit back and suck for the next several years.
  • The Cubs deserve credit for stepping up with a big offer, but knowing where to draw the line.
  • The Cubs might be surprisingly competitive as soon as 2014.
  • There isn’t another Anibal Sanchez on the market this offseason, though.

I probably wouldn’t put all of that exactly the same way, but it’s close enough. I’d probably add that the sales pitch will always be slightly more difficult for the Cubs until they’re not coming off a terrible season. Wrigley and Chicago are great, and so is the chance to end the drought. But many players will only sign with a winner, and it’s hard to blame them.

The truth is, I think most of the media – and maybe many of you – were surprised that the Cubs were actually going after a big-time free agent like Sanchez, and they are now slightly encouraged about the prospect of covering the Cubs over the next few years (whereas, previously, it looked like it was going to be another two years of losses, “flippable assets,” prospects, and hope). I always thought Sanchez made sense for the Cubs, and always thought they were going to be trying to have a competitive team by 2014, so I guess that’s the primary reason I don’t share their enthusiasm. That is to say: I was already at their level of enthusiasm. So, for me, the Sanchez story is mostly just disappointing.

In any event, the Cubs are clearly going to try and pick up at least one more starter this offseason, even if there isn’t another Sanchez floating out there. Still, because of that pursuit, it’s an extremely plausible possibility that the Cubs will look at some of the “better” starting pitchers left on the market, including Edwin Jackson and Shaun Marcum. I also think they will remain attached to Carlos Villanueva, but his market will be a tough one to figure – he wants to start, but the late-inning relief market has developed so robustly that he’ll probably get some attractive offers from teams looking for a swing-type. Francisco Liriano remains a possibility, but, like Villanueva, he’s more of an upside buy than a sure thing.

Short-term now figures to be the focus.

In the above Sanchez articles, Bruce Levine says the Cubs will now focus on a “a quality short term starting solution like RHP Edwin Jackson or LHP Francisco Liriano.”

Paul Sullivan also thinks short-term will be the ticket: “There aren’t any difference-making, top-shelf starters remaining on the market, but the Cubs may look at Shaun Marcum or Edwin Jackson, both of whom can be had for a shorter term deal at far less money.”

And Gordon Wittenmyer joins the chorus: “Someday these guys might be ready to overpay to win now. But don’t expect any other big multi-year offers this winter. Plan B could be Edwin Jackson on a short deal or Carlos Villanueva.”

While I do think they’ve got the range of targets right, I’m not so sure I’d agree that Edwin Jackson, for example, can be had on a “short-term” deal. There are still a great many teams looking to add a starter (the Red Sox, the Pirates, the Padres, the Brewers, and the Rangers, among them), and I could see Jackson landing a three or four-year deal in excess of $10 to $12 million per year. It’s just the way the market is.

That may be the next question for the front office: is Edwin Jackson, who, like Sanchez, will be 29 next season, but who has never consistently been an over-100 ERA+ guy, worth a four-year, $48 million commitment? Can he be had for less?

Or would the Cubs be better off stick with someone like Villanueva or Liriano on a one or two-year deal? If so, you can expect to keep hearing “flippable assets” for a while.

Which, even after coming up short on Sanchez, isn’t necessarily the wrong way to go.

(Note: You won’t hear about lefty John Lannan as a target, because he reportedly just signed with the Phillies on a one-year, $2.5 million deal, with another $2.5 million in incentives possible. That’s a cheap deal right there.)

  • Drew


    With Philly spending money on Mike Adams and Lannan I can’t expect them to have much leftover to go after Swisher or even Ross. Do you see them contacting the Cubs for Soriano if Theo/Jed eat 26 million of his deal to facilitate a trade? Instead of going for Dominic Brown, perhaps there are pitching prospects to consider?

  • Fastball

    Unfortunately Porcello isn’t the kind of pitcher we really need. We already have Porcello in Garza and Shark. You could say he is no better than Baker if Baker is truly healthy. The rub is the Cubs need a starting pitcher who will be around for several years who is a notch above what we already have. The question I have is why Theo didn’t just keep going up over $80M with Sanchez. If we kept him for 4 out of the 5 years and projecting what pitching will cost in those years vs. today it would have still been a good contract. How serious were they really? If they were very serious about Sanchez they would have simply forced Detroit to keep outbidding them until it became obscene. It didn’t end at an obscene number IMO. Where will they find that pitcher now or next year? We could have had Sanchez without making a trade of prime chips. In order for the Cubs to get an upper echelon starter it is going to take a trade that compromises the system or they have to draft a kid who can come straight to the majors in a year. That’s possible but unlikely. So now we almost have to sign Jackson IMO. We need real starters even if we have a bunch of number 3’s, 4’s and 5’s. If we add Jackson we can be strong against competition in the 2 through 5 spots in the rotation. I would actually put a no. 5 starter in against opposing teams no. 1’s. Even our best starters won’t win most of those games so why waste solid efforts from starting pitchers who won’t win most of those matchup’s anyway. So I would throw away those games with a Feldman as my starting pitcher. You have to be smart about pitching matchup’s. You also are going to lose 72 games if you are a 90 game winner so those are the one’s you lose. If your Sveum you need to have a battle plan for your season. Get a good outfielder right now. I think Morse from Washington could be had and we could get him with a real nice prospect package but not give up too much in the way of top assets. Theo has to make a couple brilliant moves or he is in trouble. Morse hits for power and drives in runs. He would be great in RF. We have to start somewhere and that’s where we start IMO. At the trade deadline trade Garza and a prospect for Olt. As long as by end of this season we have the holes filled we can be in a good spot going into 2014. If we got Olt at the deadline and we didn’t cannibalize the pitching staff completely we could still make a WC run this year.

    • http://401klogic.net Westbound Willie

      Paragraphs are your friend.

      • Richard Nose

        Lay off, his keyboard didn’t come with an ENTER key.

        • Eric

          I don’t think his brain came with an enter key. I don’t think there were moments for breath in there.


      Your assuming that the Tigers would stop bidding.- Sanchez alone is not the difference but the amount of dollars the Cubs would need to sign him would now boarder on CRAZy. And that would send a signal to other players that the Cubs would pay Hendry money to sign FA This is not the message the Front Office wants to sends. I truly believe the Cubs thought they had Sanchez signed and they over paid the contract to get him -its just Detroit needed to win now . They trade their number one prospect SP to get SAnchez . THe front office did not do its homework or the Agent double crossed Cubs .

      • Hawkeye

        The thing is if we ever do sign a prime free agent, it’s going to be for “too much”. At the end of the day being in on Sanchez isn’t enough. We need to land some quality players, it offers me little solace to be “in” on Sanchez, Darvish, etc.

      • baldtaxguy

        I wonder if the Cubs ever had a chance to counter the $80m. Just following the reported events, its possible that the Tigers indicated that this is it, no mas, to Sanchez. If so, it would further support the agent’s “use” of the Cubs to maximize his client’s contract. Not that the Cubs would have topped it, but it would be an interesting fact.


      how do we get Morse? I like the player but how do we get him ? I honestly dont see a fit . The Cubs have too many 5,6, 7and 8 hiters type of slot hitters . Morse is a power hitter with little speed – he replaces who and at what price – value Vs production again.

  • Jbb

    Soriano’s WAR was four as high as seven. I do not track how we would pay 26M of a deal. Too much current production to give away unless you get several high quality prospects. Amazing how one year can change the opportunity for getting value. McKay has done well with this project.

  • Old school

    Cubs need to gain value or to collect assets that will have value when they are ready to compete. Gain value through flippable assets thoroughly discussed. Those assets buy prospects.
    One approach not discussed as much, great team defense. The improved defense with inflate the value of our pitching assets, both flippables and young prospects. Bourjos and/or Bourn will clearly add to Garza and Baker’s value. Moving Soriano will add to their value (even if Brett is out there). Putting an outfield of Matthews, Durham and Moreland will not. For example Morse or Ross.
    I also think a team with speed and defense will make the product much more interesting while they accumulate another year of top ten draft picks.
    I lose my patience this time next year.


    The Cubs will be aggresive in the Free agency when its Ready to compete is a phrase used by losers that need a scapegoat excuse for its failure in actions. Yes the Cubs are not in a position to compete but they have been aggressive this year in Fa signings – they just sign player with possible upside – therefore for any production they get will always be on the positive side that in itself is the snake oil that this front office is trying to sell its fans

    I get it ,Theo is trying to prove the value in creating runs that represent in the roster. yet if the Cubs are still in last place that value should be zero to its fans.

    • DarthHater

      Old school didn’t say “be aggressive in free agency when ready to compete.” He said “collect assets that will have value when they are ready to compete.” Two completely different things. It’s entirely possible to be aggressive in free agency today in pursuit of an asset who will have value a couple years form now. That’s why they pursued Sanchez.

      There is nothing loserish or scapegoatish about a rebuilding team focusing on collecting assets with an eye to a year or two down the road.

  • nkniacc13

    Be interesting to see if the Cubs make any moves before Christmas

  • Need mee owner

    That was for show tom wrigley cheap


    ,if old school took it as a jab _ I am deeply sorry to old school . You are correct Darth – but most of the contracts that Cubs sign are 1 year contracts to flip ,.that can not be denied and the type of player that sign those contracts are players that need something to prove. If a team collects and sign to many of those type players then the tires are just spinning.

    • BWA

      Agreed, but let the tires spin for a year while the very good lower farm system matures. Seeing as there aren’t any free agents that make sense at this point for where we are at, why waste the money? (Sanchez was the guy I wanted). Hopefully, this time next year we will have flipped or extended Garza, and probably flipped some combo of Soriano, Marmol, Baker, Feldman, Dejesus, or Camp for some good prospects again. Then next offseason we will have a strong enough farm to deal for a guy like Price or King Felix, we will have more money to spend on Cano (doubtful), Johnson, Lincecum etc., and the farm system will be close enough to be spitting out some players for the 2014 season. Will we still have a ton of holes next offseason? Yes. But I hope that by 2014 we will make the acquisitions needed to at least be an above 500 club, and by 2015-2016 we will be in the playoffs.

      Crazyhorse, I completely respect your opinion, because sucking as much as we will in 2013 is going to be tough to swallow, but can you see the benefits?

      • Turn Two

        I second every thing in this statement

  • KYCub

    Cubs need to add value to the ML team, not just the farm system. I do not see enough MLB Team talent or enough Farm talent to compete within the next 5 years. Our best farm players are 2-4 years from being ready. Their are not any pitchers ready to contribute next year. Maybe not for 3 years. Vizciano is the only possible. The hopes that 2014 is the year we start competing is a pipe dream unless the front office is willing to pay MLB proven players. Ian stewart, Valbuena, Schierholtz, Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, and Castillo are not near proven commodities. Adding players like these every year will not build any type of contender.


      Well my work day is done. to all a good nite!

    • TakingWrigleyToSaoPaulo

      Not sure I agree with this. Non-proven commodities only need one year of good baseball before they become “proven” commodities to other GM’s wherein they can be traded for older commodities that have a track record. With some ancillary free agent signings, think the cubs can be relevant in 2015

  • Old school

    No jab taken, clearly any move taken can add assets, but they have to be considered with the long term view.
    Jackson for five years IMO is not following the plan. He’s a solid four or five, perhaps required on a solid team, not a rebuilding one. Marcum for two to fill and flip works. Baker for one (wish it was two) works.
    They shouldn’t be in any hurry now to compete for these assets. We should wait and wait and wait. Doesn’t matter if we get the best of the rest as none of the pitchers fall into the long term plan. More important to get the best value for future asset attainment.
    Give me defense, on-base% and speed.
    If we can get assets by spending money, lets do that too. I’ll take Vernon Wells and two prospects (even with some of his $20M per year) if that helps 2014, over Jackson.

    • TakingWrigleyToSaoPaulo

      Old School,

      Like the way you think. However, with reards to certain young players, and how they fit into the current state of the cubs major league team, I like to think of them as an option with a set floor (not making it in the show). Personally, I would rather give a very young player a chance with a 80% chance of batting .240 and a 20% chance of becoming an above average center fielder or even an all star that I control for the next 6 years than a veteran who has a 80% chance of batting .270 and a 20% chance of flopping or getting hurt with diminishing returns over the years of his contract.

  • TheCubsFanFormerlyKnownAsJeff

    I’m watching Moneyball for the first time, I’m sure I will have all the answers after I watch it. Watch out for my posts later :)

    • cubfanincardinalland

      I like the part where he gives David Justice crap, telling him the Yankees are paying you 3.5 million bucks to play against them. Reality check indeed.

  • http://bleachernation.com ramy16

    Like Rizzo 44 said…sign Jair Jurggens! Low risk 3/15 million

    • Marcel91

      have any of you who suggests actually seen Jair pitch the last two years or are you just going off his name and past performance alone? My 12 little brother has better stuff than he does at this point. His arm turned into a noodle after all the injuries and nobody wants him unless it’s a last last resort. Guy is garbage, do not want….especially not at that ridiculous price you just suggested.

      • Pat

        I didn’t realize he had been terriblebt he last two years. I must have been thrown off by that ERA+ of 129 in 2011.

        Regardless, a 3/15 deal is only ridiculous to the degree that no free agent pitcher would sign for that length of time at that low per year. Hell, Jason Marquis got 3/21 and that was almost a decade ago.

    • Jeremy

      Jurggens is a waste of money. He throws a ball like 30 MPH now. Literally no reason to even try to sign him, especially at 5 million a year.

  • Scott Hanson

    Couldn’t they trade Soriano to the Giants for some pitching prospects? They could get the power hitter they need and the Cubs could get some arms for future seasons.

    • http://www.worldseriesdreaming.com dabynsky

      Accoring to reports the Cubs tried that before the deadline but Soriano refused to waive his NTC to go to SF.

    • Pat

      No one is going to give up multiple decent pitching prospects for a guy who is going to be 37 next year who has averaged around 135 games played the last six years. He may get moved late in the offseason for a fringe prospect, but he is nobody’s plan a or b.

      • Rizzo44

        The Giants accepted the deal, Sori didn wat to go there…..

        • Pat

          What deal? There was never any mention of who was involved from SF. And that was at the trade deadline, where options are limited. I think it’s pretty clear from the limited interest despite the Cubs willingness to eat much of the money that no one is all that interested.

          • nkniacc13

            Sori has a NTC he was asked if he would go to SF and had said LA would be only West coast team he would consider

      • Rizzofanclub

        Actually Toronto just traded a few top prospects for a 37 year old.

        • Pat

          Did he average missing around a fifth of his starts the last six years?

        • DocPeterWimsey

          I cannot say that I think overmuch of Toronto’s thinking here. In particular, they are foolish if they give up d’Arnaud for Dickey. (Yes, Dickey has had a nice 3 year run, and, yes, knuckleballers can pitch a while, but I still wouldn’t give up a 23 year old catcher of d’Arnaud’s potential for that.)

          Still, the Jays clearly are “all in” in 2013.

          • Crazyhorse

            no doc – i will use your words Dickey has had a nice threee years – and his primary pitch is the knuckle ball. I dont think i have to recall Niekro . Dickey is on that path to specialness but a better pitcher with a higher velocity, and pitch selection that is wider than niekros, By him using the knuckleball. basically his velocity can be quicker when he wants to be, but he dont have to rely on it as his primary pitch or secondary pitch ( its the reason for now why he is special special off speeds )
            so Dickey for an unproven commidity but a high prospect vs Dickey in this instance the odds are with dickey. but hey it could happen tha tit goes against dickey. Now sign dickey for value is a no at this point but you will get production is the only real reason a prospect has worth.

  • Rizzo44

    Going out to Lincoln Park for a walk with my dog… Watch i’ll be back at 9 ad there will be reports that we signed Jackson or Marcum, only to turn out it wasnt true… lolol

  • Mike

    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to go after Cody Ross? We would be getting a decently quality outfielder while making the phillies options limited to Soriano kind of forcing there hand to trade for him?!?

    • Marcel91

      Ross is one of the more overrated Free agents available at the price range he’s going to get. It’ll be an overpay and present no value whatsoever. That why nobody want’s to give in to him and Boston would rather overpay Victorino than bring him back(and thats saying alot)

      • FFP

        Ross splits (best vs. Lefties OR in Fenway) make him more valuable to the Red Sox than most other teams.
        I’d bet they deal Jacoby, put the Victorino in Center, pay Ross and hire a righty-hitting road smasher to platoon with him 1/4 of the time.

        (Plus, Ross is proven one of the few humans immune to whatever toxins are (still) in Boston’s dirty water. )

  • Melrosepad

    I’d say lets go for Jackson on a 3 for 39 deal. He can go out and give us 30+ starts for those three years, this way when we trade Baker and Feldman we have some stability.


      AGREE 4 SURE

    • Crazyhorse

      75 starts for three years ( slight laugh) As a pitcher gets older the chances of him duplicating what he has done in the past is …. special. (Elite pitchers, very few pitcher can sustain that that kind of success with his age ). This is what Theo is balancing quality starts vs payroll value,Value vs production , Why pay a tier 3 pitcher or boarder line 2 ( 1 being an an ace ) pitcher a salary of a solid number two. The difference may be 8 to 10 million a year
      its not worth it. The tommy johns will produce and for far less money. Tis the reason the Cubs went after Sanchez the rewards are that high for a contract the cubs offered. but offeringJjackson is not a wise gamble.
      sorry if i am vague its what i see, and it is a compliment to the front office yet NOT an excuse.

    • Frank F

      We’d actually have more than stability. I’d like the Garza/Shark/Jackson/Baker/Feldman rotation a lot. Meanwhile, we could shop Travis Wood to teams looking for a 4 starter with potential to be a bit better. We’d also have Vizcaino in the wings, Raley and Rusin as depth, and see what Bowden and Cabrera look like as starters in AAA.



  • Crazyhorse

    oh and by the way the Cubs will try and sign bourne .

  • JR

    OK, so when the Cubs make an offer they NEED to tell the client it’s pulled if not accepted on the spot. It’s the only way to handle these situations. Take it or leave it. It’s been working for the Angels.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I think that’s probably too broad of a general rule – some players would not respond well to that, especially if you’re not the team in the driver’s seat.

      And then say they walk, but come back wanting to do the deal after talking to the other team. Do you say no, even though you wanted them at that price? If you say yes, your future threats are meaningless. I don’t think it’s a great tactic in most situations.

      • JR

        Yeah it’s a risky move, but when you know a guy wants to play for another team I think it makes sense. Especially when the Tigers were only at 4/48. I know it’s what the Angels have done for Pujols and Hamilton. I don’t think there would have been anyway that the Rangers would not have matched knowing Hamilton would be going to the Angels even though it was a stupid deal.

        • MichiganGoat

          Where are you getting the info that the Angels gave Pujols and Hamilton a take or leave it deal?

    • MichiganGoat

      I doubt that is what the Angels are doing, we are able to watch/follow negotiations in real time and see how this process plays out. The concept of a take it or leave it deal just isn’t something that happens in real life- it’s more of what TV/movies have taught us.

      • JR

        It’s been reported in the Hamilton deal the Moreno told Hamilton and his agent that if they left the room after they offered the deal was off the table. You have to find a way to end these games.

        • MichiganGoat

          Link please, I think that is more an andedontal post-script versus the reality of what happened.

          • JR

            I don’t have a link. I heard it on MLB network and ESPN.

            • MichiganGoat

              I’ve been looking for a confirmation of this story and just can’t find anything, as I said I think this is post-script story that sounds amazing but isn’t the reality of the situation. To think Hamilton’s agent would make sure that Hamilton had time to check with his family and think about a deal before signing just isn’t reality. Maybe this was staged for the story but to think Hamilton and his agent were stuck in a room with a short time clock to make a decision just isn’t real. I’m sure all this was done over the course of a few days and hidden from the media. It’s a great story but just isn’t the reality of multi-million deals.

              • Pat

                Seeing as the story is being reported nationally, don’t you think someone would have come out and denied it if it weren’t true?

                • MichiganGoat

                  If there is a reputable link (ie not Skip Baylessesque) then please give a link.

              • FFP

                .According to several baseball officials, Angels owner Arte Moreno gave Hamilton a take-it-or-leave-it offer of a five-year deal worth $125 million. Moreno did not want Hamilton to take the offer to the Rangers and give them a chance to match.

                Not solid evidence. It the “widely reported” type of stuff.

                Credit Goat with wanting more confirmation. Lots of Boston radio guys assume its true.

                Even if it is true, is it the best way to proceed. I think Theo has played many other teams in his time, hoping to drive them out of his next deal by making them over pay for a current one. Also, I think players get that Theo wants them to get paid. Ultimately it builds mutual respect to NOT play this “car salesman” card.

                • MichiganGoat

                  Here is a link from MLB.com that gives all the answers and quells the take it or leave it story


                  They had met before and wanted a quick response but they left Hamilton with the offer and then later that night he agreed to the deal.

                  • JR

                    Yeah, it was probably less intense than Hamilton and his agent not being able to leave the room. But I think it’s safe to say that Moreno and the Angels do a better job of making sure that the crap that went down with the Cubs and Sanchez doesn’t happen to them. Regardless of how stupid their offer was to Hamilton.

                    • MichiganGoat

                      Hamilton/Angels and Sanchez/Cubs are two different scenarios – they Tigers and Sanchez both wanted each other whereas the Rangers/Hamilton relationship was not exactly mutual or desired (regardless of the post-script story that the Rangers wanted him- if they did they had more than enough time to sign him long term and instead balked at giving him anything more than three years). The real problem is that we are all hurt by how beautifully Sanchez’s agent played this game. He used social media to leverage a better deal and the Tigers fell right into his hand. This is part of the game that is played but this time the Cubs lost and maybe even the Tigers lost but the winner is Sanchez. That is why you pay and agent the money you do and if I was a ball player I’d be really impressed by how this played out.

                    • JR

                      I know they are 2 completely different scenarios that’s not my point at all. Sanchez’s agent told Nightengale to say the Cubs were close to a deal with his client and it worked. I don’t think it was that bold of a move. All I am simply saying is that the Angels do not allow these type of shenanigans to occur. All agents would do what dirty’s agent did otherwise.

                • MichiganGoat

                  And we all know that Boston media checks their sources and never push the truth or reality of a story 😉

                  • FFP

                    no special language that protects the Angels in case of a relapse (though Major League Baseball’s Drug Policy already does by nature).

                    Good link. Didn’t know this part about MLB drug policy.

                    I feel like we are missing 50% of our baseball operations if we think they’d use “this deal. Now. Take-it-or-leave-it”

                    • MichiganGoat

                      Its a great story and is fun to think that anyone ever does that, and if there is ever a movie made about this deal I promise you it will be done just like that- its too Hollywood to ignore. The reality is always much much much more boring than the narrative created afterwards and this is perfect example.

          • JR

            Goat, I guess it could be complete b.s. and that the Angels could give others a chance to match. But I think it does make sense with how they swoop in at the last second and get the player they are targeting without the games that agents will play.

            • MichiganGoat

              I doubt think they just appeared, offered a deal, and gave him a hour to decide. What makes sense is that Hamilton’s agent did see a need to leak anything to the press- my guess is that they offered the deal, everyone kept quiet (because everyone knew it was the best deal), Hamilton got his “house” in order, and then it was announced. Likewise I’m sure the Cubs and Sanchez were is discussions before we heard about the deal and his agent used the leverage to get the Tigers to up the offer. The take it or leave deal is just too Hollywood.

              • JR

                No doubt that Hamilton had been talking to the Angels before hand and they probably had some of the stuff ironed out before the formal offer. The Angels knew that if they made an acceptable offer he would come over. But I really think that they express with their clients that if they catch wind of their offer being used as part of a negotiation with another team their deal is off the table.

                • MichiganGoat

                  That makes more sense, but as Brett said if they wanted Hamilton would they pull the deal if something was linked. I sure his agent made a few calls and everyone said: There is no way we can meet or exceed that deal.

                  • JR

                    Yes, if something is leaked then you absolutely pull the deal. That is part of it. Just hearing how disappointed the Rangers were after they lost him, feel like they would have matched.

                    • MichiganGoat

                      Again this is an andedontal story, see the link I posted below FFP response.

  • LouCub

    Isn’t it kind of like that with NFL free agency, when you get him in first and get him commited before he leaves.???

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Sure – but the Cubs had been courting Sanchez for a month. It’s a lot easier to try take-it-or-leave it when you have no relationship established and just got in on a guy last week (like the Angels and Hamilton). Thoughts on this coming in this morning’s Lukewarm Stove.

  • Frank F

    Last I checked, The Padres were interested in Edwin Jackson on a 3 year deal. If they get him for 3 years, I won’t be happy. If we were ultimately willing to go 5/77 on Sanchez, we can go at least 4/50 on Jackson.

    He may not be quite as good as Sanchez, but he’s everything that Epstein likes in a player:

    -Former mega prospect
    -under 30 years old
    -Nice BB/K rates
    -Despite having only 1 spectacular season (2009,) he’s been a quality 3 starter at worst throughout his career.

    We obviously have the money, and who knows what will be available this time next year.

    The other hand is that if the Padres can get him for 3 years, it means that thereare 28 teams besides the Cubs that werent willing to give him more, and they know more than we do. Perhaps there’s a reason that he’s only 29 and looking to sign with his 8th team.

    Still, I want him. He’s younger than Marcum, without the injury history and he’s a safer bet than Villanueva to be a productive pitcher over a 4-5 year period.

  • Pingback: So, Let’s Talk About Edwin Jackson | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • http://ethelscha.mancouch.com/772799371/hiatal-hernia-acid-reflux--free-fascinating/ http://www.bytekit.org/

    It’s very easy to say that you’ll exercise, but unless you set aside a specific time, it’s also very easy for that commitment to fall by the wayside. Although special diet and workout plans have been devised for sufferers of this condition, these techniques do not work for all people. One of my clients had a fear of lizards so bad that she couldn’t go to a restaurant because if she saw
    a shadow that looked like a lizard she would freak out.

  • mouse click on www.bytekit.org

    The option of undergoing Gastric Bypass surgery
    Los Angeles is not the solution for those kind of people.
    Body Mass Index (BMI) is an important factor to determine obesity.
    AIIMS, Fortis Health Care, Max are some of the famous hospitals where
    Bariatric surgery is performed.

  • http://Nildaazftffhet.Wordpress.com/2013/06/24/carp-fishing-gear/ daiwa bedchair buddy

    Quality articles is the main to invite the users to visit the
    website, that’s what this web page is providing.

  • http://Bit-wiki.de/index.php/Benutzer:OrvilleWe Stella

    I’m curious to find out what blog system you are working with? I’m having
    some minor security issues with my latest website and I’d like to find something more safe. Do you have any recommendations?