Quantcast

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.)

  • http://www.chiesaditotti.com Bren

    If we’re truly fishing at the bottom of the pitching barrel, I say shoot for the moon and gamble on Liriano and hope he can some semblance of his 2010 form back

    • http://www.chiesaditotti.com Bren

      *can regain some semblance*

    • Matty V

      Agreed. I’d like to see what Liriano could do. He is probably the biggest risk, but also probably has the biggest upside.

      • mudge

        We don’t need the pitcher with the biggest upside. We need the pitcher with the strongest legs.

    • Jeff1969

      If Liriano can be had for a deal like Lannan got, I’d say ok. Did you see Liriano last year with the White Sox? Let somebody else give him more money to admire an ERA somewhere near 6.00.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        Did you see Liriano last year with the White Sox?

        Really, have you seen him any year other than 2010? Even in that year, his walk rate was anomalously low, as was his HR:FB rate. If you look at his numbers, it was not that he’d “found” something that year: it was the year you expect him to have once every 15 or so seasons. That means it’s about 1 in 15 that we’d see it next year. Liriano also managed to throw a ton of innings that year. Every other year has been much the same: meh.

        • Jeff1969

          What are you even talking about. Go take your pills Doc. He was wretched last year and pretty much, and note I say, pretty much, not absolutely completely, but pretty much garbage every year except in 2010 and 2006. 2006 was also the other year his walk rate was decent. I’ve said this before, most recently in our disagreement about Omar Infante, which you were totally wrong about, but never commented after I pantsed you, half the time you just say crap hoping no one is going to check up on you, I will. Go back & read the last exchange, you sound a like you have a concussion or something.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

            Kind of looks like you are both saying that Liriano is not a good pitcher and is not someone the Cubs need to invest significantly in.

            • Kansas Cubs Fan

              I was thinking the same thing Luke.

              Haha

          • DocPeterWimsey

            No, I was right about Infante: your assertions to the contrary mean nothing. I didn’t comment because anyone so ignorant as to still use errors instead of range for fielding does not merit comment.

            And that’s probably the last I’ll respond to you.

  • Serio

    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson
    No Edwin Jackson

    • Dustin S

      I agree on this 100%, I think Jackson is very overrated. Maybe 2 years max just to flip and since he couldn’t do too much damage in 2013-14, but definitely not 4.

      Reality is that it was going to be real tough this offseason to get anyone decent to come to a 101 loss team. I’m not sure I want anyone who would come to this team in it’s current state just for the biggest check. Maybe take a chance on a Saunders-like guy this year. Hopefully 2013 can show some small signs of heading in the right direction…and there will be more chances for these types of guys next year when we’re a bit closer to a playoff-caliber team, impending tv deal, etc.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      You stole this from my Michael Bourn rap….

      :-)

      • Frank

        You’re a rapper too??

  • Jose Cardenal

    contend in 2014????
    Keep dreamin!

  • willis

    I’d be good with going after any of Marcum, Jackson or Liriano. Cubs need at least one more arm.

    Go Butler!

    • http://facebook #1cubsfan2013

      willis i agree with top half but go IU.

  • Devin

    I hope this situation does show people that the FO will spend money on the right guys in the right situations. It’s really disappointing that they missed out on Sanchez; you’re not going to find another guy of that caliber. So which is the better idea: lockup relatively lower quality guy (Villanueva) or gamble on a flipable asset (Lirano)? Brett, Do you think the FOs choice will have any relation to how competitive they expect to be in ’14?

  • DarthHater

    I don’t understand how one gets from the Sanchez situation to the view that the Cubs will now try to land a short-term deal for an established starter like Jackson or Marcum.

    Signing Sanchez certainly would have made the Cubs better in 2013, but that was not the reason for trying to sign him. The reason was because the FO saw Sanchez as a good long-term piece of the puzzle. Unfortunately, they were not able to acquire that piece. If there were another starter available who could be viewed as a viable long-term piece, I think we could expect the FO to go after that guy, but I don’t see such a player available.

    Absent a starter who would be worth signing to a long-term deal, I think the FO will go back to its strategy of looking for potentially flippable bounce-back candidates like Liriano, or maybe a high-potential-upside gamble on somebody like Villanueva (unless the robust relief market pushes his salary demands too high). Maybe I’m missing something, but I see no reason to think that the FO will now be looking to sign a Marcum or a Jackson at a 3-year deal at the kind of salary those guys are likely to command.

  • Tom

    If Theo and Tom thought enough of Sanchez to make a personal visit, how could they be outbid? Don’t like making this a “moral” victory.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      Um, how does it possibly follow that visiting a player precludes being outbid? What happens when, gasp, two teams visit a player?!?!? A logical conundrum!

      It really is quite simple: Sanchez gave the Tigers last bid privileges. The Tigers always were going to get the final bid (even if it was “we pass”).

    • DarthHater

      Learning that Theo and Ricketts made the personal visit does make me feel somewhat more negative about the performance of our FO in this situation. If the Cubs went as far as the personal visit, then they obviously though the deal was on the verge of being sealed. Maybe they were misled by the agent, but these guys are supposed to be big-time negotiators and they should have the sense to couple their offer with conditions that would preclude a bidding war. I’m not outraged about any of this by a long shot, but it does make our FO look somewhat foolish.

      Also, doesn’t the personal visit by Theo and Ricketts provide a possible partial explanation for some of the erroneous tweeting about the deal being done?

      • Frank

        That is true–but probably the only condition that would preclude a bidding war is a “final offer, take it or leave it” scenario–but it’d be awfully hard to win in that situation if Detroit was always going to get the last bid. It looks like they were negotiating with a guy who might’ve taken less money to stay where he was, as long as he got the years he wanted, because that’s where he really wanted to be. Hard to win that with just money.

        • DarthHater

          Yep. “Our deal is on the table. Take as long as you want, but if you walk out the door or pick up a telephone, the deal is withdrawn.” I think that’s what you have to do. Of course, the player has the option of insisting that Detroit gets the last bid. If he does, then you have to choose whether to withdraw your offer or allow the bidding war to ensue. If you choose the latter option, at least you know what is going on and won’t be in a position to appear to have been blinsided by an agent who shopped your offer around without your knowledge.

  • brian

    shawn marcum is the best pitcher still out there in my opinion, he should be the guy we target

    • Lou

      Agreed, Marcum is the best pitcher right now in terms of FA.

  • http://www.survivingthalia.com Mike Taylor (no relation)

    I just posted on the message board about Jackson vs Marcum. You know, they are very similar, except Marcum is a fly ball pitcher and 2 years, 3 months younger (and will probably be cheaper w/ less years on a contract). We’ll see how the FO deals with this.

  • Feelz72

    I still don’t understand why the FO thinks we will be competitive in 2014. We will be in the same situation next off season as we are in now. I just can’t have total faith in our minor league guys yet to make us competitive in 2014.

  • DarthHater
    • Smackafilieyo

      That’s a great read!! I can’t imagine the cubs pulling money from a TV deal more than the dodgers….there ain’t enoighg high end free agents to spend on then.

  • Rizzo44

    First, focus on Edwin Jackson and Shaun Marcum. Then, if none of them sign, sign both Villanueva and Jurrgens to 1-3 year contracts. I still want Michael Bourn though.. Start spending some money Theo and Jed!!

    • Chris

      I don’t necessarily “want” Bourn but I think he would be an important piece towards competing in 2014.

      • Rizzo44

        Yeah thats the reason i want him.. Rizzo, Castro, and Bourn could be the the main centerpiece.

  • Spencer

    I think it’s hard to use Wrigley as a sales pitch until it gets renovated. Also, the free agent pitchers for 2014 aren’t really all that exciting. If the Cubs want to be competitive in 2014, a trade may be the best way to go for pitching – particularly if they don’t extend Garza.

  • Tcal

    I feel like out of the main 3, Marcum would probably be the best way to go. I have confidence in a guy like that. Also would love to see us unload Marmol and possibly Soriano by the time spring training starts.

  • ottoCub

    I am very impressed with the Cubs FO’s long-term strategy. The current focus on signing pitchers is a great tactic. The Cubs are rebuilding, which involves developing a deep and broad farm system, stocked with quality prospects. Some of these prospects will become major-leaguers, but most won’t. They’ll be used as trade-bait when the time is right. The strategy to buy free-agent pitchers now is perfect because pitchers have proven in recent years to be the most readily trade-able position. So, as the Cubs stock up on pitching, they continually have pitchers to trade to acquire prospects. Prospects will either become successful Cubs, or they will used in later trades to acquire the component parts to create a long-term successful major league team. This will take a few years to play out, but it should build a long-term successful organization.

  • http://www.survivingthalia.com Mike Taylor (no relation)

    A lot of the reasons why we’ll be competitive in 2014 is the analysis of the 2013 season. We have two pitchers coming over from the AL and I’m guessing we’re gonna keep 1 of the 2.

  • http://bleachernation.com frank hutch

    Want nothing to do with josh johnson. Guys an injury waiting to happen. He ll be lucky to pitch 150 innings this year

    • Chris

      Cub’s pitching staff already looks like Frank Jobe’s waiting room. What’s one more?

  • Kubphan82

    Anyone else having serious issues with the ADs on the page, it’s crippling my maneuvering through the site, often not being able to read an entire article? I had to refresh this page to get rid of the ad and make it to the bottom to just reply….

  • http://bleachernation.com lou brock lives

    Marcum is not healthy – shoulder issues. Watching him pitch last year was like watching Sutcliffe at the end of his career. Sut would always wait for the pain from his last pitch to subside & then look in for his sign, grimace & wind up to throw a 85 mph heater. It was not a pretty sight.
    Jackson is the better option. He has always been healthy & is also a very good hitting pitcher & athlete. He fields his position well and will give you 200 innings every year.

  • Ken

    It seems to me that our Theo needs to learn to close a deal. Getting shopped like he did is bush league.

    • The Show

      What if Sanchez never wanted to go to the Cubs in the first place and was just using them to get more money from the Tigers since the Cubs were the next highest offer? The Tigers gave him $80M for a 2/3 type pitcher. If the Cubs match that, he is going to choose the Tigers, if the Cubs top that offer people are going to complain we spent too much on a #2/3 type pitcher and the Cubs lost the deal so they are either not trying, or not trying hard enough. Simply the FO no matter what happens.

      • The Show

        *Simply the FO loses no matter what happens.

    • MikeL

      Wrong.

      The Tigers were offering Sanchez 4/60 and didn’t think they had any major competitors. The Cubs offered Sanchez 5/75 and the agent told the Cubs–and members of the media–that it was a done deal, while going back to the Tigers front office to tell them that Sanchez was going to sign with the Cubs…..unless they could up their offer. Sanchez and his agent were able to get another year out the Tigers which is all they wanted the entire time and knew that the Tigers would offer if it to stave off other major competition. Sanchez was never coming to the Cubs unless they made some outrageous offer like 6/100+.

  • Fastball

    I feel the Cubs should sign both Marcum and Jackson. Liriano not so much. I think if we take both of those pitchers off the market we have a much stronger rotation and are aligned to make a couple of moves at the deadline. With the rotation we have now there is no depth beyond the 5 and it is a big gamble to assume that the guys coming off TJ are going to put up results and innings this year. I like Jackson because he has playoff pitching experience and he pitches pretty well in big games. Teams on the market in July are going to want that experience. I would like for us to own it and reap the reward. Marcum is young enough to keep for a couple years in hopes a few of our home grown prospects emerge. I really think Theo will go after Cody Ross and make him the starting RF. I see Schierholtz as a back up OF and that’s it. At this point I can’t figure a trade because our younger ML players such as Campana, Jackson etc don’t have any value. They may have some value at the deadline, especially Campana because of his base stealing ability. I think what Theo really needs to do is just get him off the 40 man and stash him in AAA for another year. He could have value to the Cubs in 2014 as a dedicated base stealer who costs league minimum. I don’t know if Jackson ever evolves into a MLB starter but we will find out this year. I just see it as being critically important to keep stock piling pitchers like Marcum, Jackson etc. I would even sign Liriano later in January if he is still around. The later it gets the cheaper he will be. That might be my MO if I’m Theo on these pitchers. Wait a bit and see what happens. Then be the GM who jumps in a the last minute and outbids some teams who may be bidding low. We can afford to bid a enough higher to win but not go way over board.

    • MoneyBoy

      FB, as I remember, that’s kind of how EJax wound up with Washington on 1 yr deal for what many thought was ‘cheap’!! You’re right too. Whether with STL or WASH, he’s pitched in some important games.

  • http://bleachernation.com lou brock lives

    Anybody claim Beliveau yet ? We need him in the pen – cannot fathom why he was DFA’d.

    • Chris

      He was DFA’d because they had 42 Cubbies for 40 Cubby holes.

  • ray

    I believe we should try to secure Shaun Marcum on a 2 year deal, really wasn’t sold on Sanchez anyway, might be “happy” we lost out on that one in the long run. Anyway, nice to see the Cubs making an effort to be competitive more quickly whether it comes to fruition or not.

  • Adam

    Give me Marcum, 3 years at 30 million

    • jose cardenal

      marcum has had shoulder and elbow issues with an avg fastball of 86.5 MPH and he isn’t maddux!!
      no thanks.
      cubs are gonna suck in 2013 and 2014 as the FA class next year is worse than this year.
      cubs had their shot at sanchez, but theo and ricketts struck out because players talk and right now the cubs are not desirable.
      2015 best shot at .500 if soler and baez ready.
      2106 best shot at 85 plus wins if almora ready too.
      losing on purposes had consequences. sanchez proved that.

      • cRAaZYHORSE

        Looking into the future is always not fair – if it was fair , many of us would be zillioniares.
        I look at the present which usually dictates our future. The Cubs minor league system looks good to solid for Theo’s prospects (Cubs) when they reach the show ,but its not set in stone. And when those prospects mature it still be a year or two away from that point. unless we drafted a Trout Clone . To think that free agency at that time will be available – to fill in the gaps . The Cubs need to fill in those Gaps Now . and then let the older veterans retire / sign somewhere else while the baby cubs mature into major league

      • mudge

        They got outbid on Sanchez. That’s reality. Everything else is conjecture.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        cubs had their shot at sanchez, but theo and ricketts struck out because players talk and right now the cubs are not desirable.

        There is no reason to think that had anything to do with the outcome. Sanchez gave the Tigers last bid privileges: that was his prerogative, and it means that he liked the Tigers, not that he disliked the Cubs. (Had the whole thing been a “geez, don’t make me sign with the Cubs!” promise, then he would have had his agent concentrate on Texas: they are this years strawman team! :-))

        As for what players say about teams, that is largely unknown. Media reports about clubhouse chemistry are remarkably inaccurate: what those reports usually reflect is how well key media personalities get along with key team personalities. A lot of clubhouses that are portrayed as “great” have later been revealed to be quite tense, and a lot of media-annointed “team leaders” have been less than popular with their teammates.

        • cRAaZYHORSE

          True

  • cRAaZYHORSE

    Good Article – I agree- Sanchez made sense for the Cubs a young player that The Cubs can build around (Not an elite Player) . Sanchez has the tools to continue be a very good decent pitcher with the mental and physical makeup that Cubs can build upon.

    I usually trash the Cubs Front office but this off season they have tried to address the 25 man roster slowly and methodology. For instance , I find it reassuring that the Cubs have revamped its bullpen by adding Kyuji Fujikawa ( I forget how many close games the Cubs lost last year because of the bullpen last season) and targeting other effective late inning setup man _ Adams , and GrillI to no avail . But they tried.

    I do like the signings of Scott Feldman and Scott Baker and with the addition of Sanchez and the rest of the Cubs Current rotation – The Cubs had a chance to be above average rotation with revamped offence behind them

    I was hoping the Cubs sign Bourne to play Centerfield and and keep Soriano in left and Dejesus in right. . I can understand Cubs fans distaste for Soriano since he has failed to play up to his contract – yet last year. was his bounce back year. He was a productive player . I thought thats what Cubs fans want ,a productive Soriano earning his contract dollars._ I did not say value since he makes over 18 mil a year . If and when we trade him and he produces, some other team will get the value and production , at the CUbs expense because of the amount of dollars the Cubs will need to hand out to close a deal.

    By the hopeful signing of Sanchez and Bourne and the signed Kyuji Fujikawa. the Cubs have only one glaring hole and that is third base – I would have hoped the Cubs signed Keppinger a player that could bat at top of the order that provides the lineup a possible leadoff combination of Bourne And Kep ( speed and OBP) is above average combination for the Cubs that has been lacking .

    I like the Signing of Navarro,Nate Schierholtz and Brian Bogusevic ONLY if they are back ups- If for some reasoon any of these players are starters then the Cubs will still be a last place team.

    And for those fans that love Ian Stewart- under my vision he has no place except being a back up, that earns his right to backup KEp.The Cubs have too many batters that hit in slots 5,6 7 and 8 of a batting order.

    With my vision the Cubs are better team and with a little luck and over -achievement a contender for a wild card spot is not unreasonable .

    But Sanchez is gone and Keppinger is gone And if the Cubs trade Soriano and Marmol and we eat those contract well then The Cubs Tanked and that my friend is why I do not like the Front Office,

    in two years The Cubs minor league should provide a 3b Javier Baez , Corner outfielders Jorge Soler and Matt Szczur (LF and RF) there is no need to trade Soriano and the following year Albert Almora should be ready

    But if The Cubs front continue to sign players that are hoping for combacks with no productive protection in its line up – then all is see is high draft choices in our future and Chicago Cub fans deserve better

  • Jbb

    Pitching wise what changed. Dempster/Maholm replaced by Feldman/Baker. Shark, Garza,Wood still in play. We do need another arm but over paying for Lariano and Marcum is high risk. FO will slow play which is the strategy. Barney and a prospect to Detroit for Porcello would Improve the team and keep the financial flexibility.

    • cRAaZYHORSE

      I would not trade Barny – Trading Barney for Porcello would produce a hole at second base. The Cubs already have a hole at 3b. (that is an A followed by a space then hole )

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

        Valbuena’s offensive numbers are comparable to Barney’s (worse BA, higher OBP, even on OPS+), and Valbuena can easily handle second. There would be somewhat of a defensive drop off, but I wouldn’t say dealing Barney would create a hole at second.

        • cRAaZYHORSE

          Who is the back up at 3b and 2b now?

  • Matt

    While I do like Barney’s defense at 2nd he can be replaced. It is easier to find positional players than young cost controlled possible top of the line starting pitching. If you can trade Barney along with something to Detroit for Porcello you do it. Now i am not saying that if we were to get Porcello he is going to become the pitcher that everyone thought he would be but when you have a chance at “that” type of pitcher for a defnsive 2nd baseman I would think you do it. As i mentioned, I do like Barney alot but if I had to choose between him or a 23 year old possible 1-2 type pitcher I have to do it.

    I think it is easier to build a team and get competitive alot quicker when you have solid pitching. I think it is easier to go out and sign or trade for positional players then it is for solid pitching so if you can trade for Porcello and add him to the rotation that is a great start and definitely something solid to build with.

  • Jbb

    Placido Palanco FA signing would patch 2b and give cover to 3b. Short term batch until one of the mid fielders from the farm comes up.

  • MichCubFan

    I like how we have filled holes on the roster that were completely empty. We still need an infielder off the bench, preferably a right-handed one.

    We filled those holes with undervalued players who could outperform their contracts if they start, which would help our quest in trading them for prospects. But we also have the flexibility to sign or trade for a player to start ahead of a Schierholtz or a Stewart.

  • cRAaZYHORSE

    Signing undervalued players usually provides under valued performance.. Not all the time but most of the time . The Cubs sign way too many of these player and it reflects by it Win And loss Column. Yes eventually the Cubs should get lucky and the win the lottery but since we give out one year contracts (which is smart) The window of opportunity is small for a trade . and if what is to prevent these players from signing elsewhere the following season?

    • DarthHater

      Signing undervalued players usually provides under valued performance.

      Beats the heck out of signing overvalued players.

      • cRAaZYHORSE

        Actually ….. Where are my number guys with the War. stats dont confuse value with production . Would the Cubs sign a 36 year old today for 18 million that has a history of injury problem heck no Their is no value. even with the production – but its no reason to trade 33 hr 100 rbi plus outfielder that has a bounce back year to create a deeper negative void when one considers the The Cubs will pay the other team thus creating value for the other team. and still pay two salaries to play left field the primary left fielder and the back up as well .

        • BWA

          No reason to complain about trading soriano if it hasn’t happened yet. If they trade him for a mediocre prospect and can’t replace more than half his production, then ya even I’ll be pissed and I love what the front office is doing. If they get a prospect that makes us say “WOW that guys gonna be good,” then I don’t really care if they do or don’t replace his production in 2013 cuz we have no chance at the playoffs regardless.

          • Crazyhorse

            yes . you are correct . i actually care if the Cubs fields a competative or improved team and you are willing to wait til the year 2014, 2015 , 2016 . and so on until you get fustrated. I want to see improvement and 101 loses is not improvement,

      • cRAaZYHORSE

        Depending on the contract and age of the player – Sometimes trading overvalued players. can actually help a ball Club if the team has a Front Office that can dump salary for prospects. The Redsox comes to mind.

        • DarthHater

          Of course. I was talking about signing overvalued players, not trading them away.

          • Crazyhorse

            Yet trading away overvalued players – will save an organization when needed , Hmmm this front office has paid . for the past mistakes with no relief the cubs swallowed all the contracts, not a pat on the back.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+