Pending physicals, the Cubs’ pitching staff is about to get crazy deep …
- BOOM: Patrick Mooney reports that the Cubs have signed Edwin Jackson to a four-year, $52 million deal, pending a physical.
- The following bullets were from before that Mooney report, so they may sound a bit off – still useful stuff, though.
- Dave Kaplan reports that the Cubs are in “prime position,” per sources, to land Edwin Jackson. Given that we’ve heard from multiple sources that the Cubs are the favorite, and we’ve started hearing numbers – four years, $52 million, the tea leaves are really strongly pointing to the Cubs getting their man. Kap adds that the Christmas holiday could hold up the timing of an announcement, but …
- Jackson’s former teammate in Washington certainly thinks Jackson has come to an agreement today, tweeting, “Congrats to my boy @EJ36 for his big deal today. You will be missed, couldn’t of happened to an amazing friend and great pitcher.” That doesn’t mean it’s the Cubs, obviously, but it sure seems likely.
- Another former teammate – Matt Garza – continues to suggest that Jackson is coming to the Cubs. Adding a bit more to his cryptic tweets earlier (asking what uniform Jackson might wear), Garza notes that he “knows Jackson really well.” Which could mean that Garza knows Jackson wants to come to the Cubs, or it could mean simply that Garza knows uniform number is very important to Jackson. Obviously the former makes slightly more sense, but, once again, this isn’t a confirmation that the Cubs are definitely getting him.
- Speaking of Garza, and this will obviously become the subject of a great deal more discussion if and when the Jackson signing is made official, Kap says that he hears from agents that the Cubs don’t plan on flipping any of the pitchers they’ve signed. But Kap doesn’t hear the same thing about Garza (implying that the Cubs could deal with their glut of starting pitchers by dealing Garza – to which I say, “still virtually impossible to trade him until he shows he’s healthy”).
- On Carlos Villanueva, whom we heard about earlier today and last night, multiple reports now have the deal as done, pending a physical. So that’s the status there.
- I’ll wait for just a bit more confirmation before delving deeply into the implications of the moves (roster, rotation, plans, etc.), and the substance of the deals. Instant reaction is: I love the depth it gives the Cubs, and I love the options it gives them. I think each deal is very fair in this market, and the arrow is pointing up.
UPDATE: Ken Rosenthal’s sources also tell him that the Cubs and Jackson are in agreement on a four-year, $52 million deal.
UPDATE the Second: Jon Heyman and Jim Bowden enter the fray, and also confirm on Jackson. By the way, Bowden was the one who started this whole discussion of the Cubs and Jackson actually potentially happening this week, so he probably deserves some credit.
UPDATE the Third: Heyman says there’s no no-trade clause in Jackson’s deal, which was never really a concern.
UPDATE the Fourth: Probably worth linking back to my take on Jackson as a target for the Cubs from earlier this week. I’ll have much more on him and the rotation in the coming days/weeks/etc. The Cubs’ situation has changed pretty dramatically in the last two days, even if these two pitchers don’t actually suddenly turn them into a playoff contender.
Wow amazing, so far i think they surpassed all our expectations. Awesome signings. This is bad news for all the Coleman’s, DFA pitchers, etc… good riddance.
I can’t begin to explain how happy I am that I will never have to see Casey Coleman pitch for the Cubs again.
Excellant! Excellant! Excellant! Great signings. The goat is closer to being dead! Now lets sign Garza to a 4 year extension and improve the outfield. Who can the Cubs get for Soriano and Marmol?
Hey leave us goats out of it, it was my great great great goat fathers owner that caused the curse not us goats
Really?? Thats funny!!
Excellent . *e* not a.
I’m loving the addition of all these arms- both high end and minor league lottery tickets.
Now we’re just an ace away from having an extremely nice staff. Plus all our young arms don’t have to be rushed.
should we wait a couple hours on this one
Here’s one way to look at signing these two guys- last year we had a $19M malcontent that we traded to the Marlins for Volstad. They combined for 1.0 WAR last season while Villy & Jackson had 3.3– and those numbers could easily improve by a win or two each season. All for $18M, or less than they paid Z. Nice
Fly under the radar as best you can and just upgrade each position. If Soriano and Rizzo can produce we can show improvment. Still need a few more professional hitters who can grind out productive atbats.
Keeping with the pitcher theme lets get us some outfielders in Rick Ankiel and Adam Loewen
(not really, but they are ex-pitchers)
Adding these arms just made the outlook for 2013 much better. I’m very happy to see this FO going after every arm they can. It was the biggest weakness in the organization, now it looks to be one of the strengths. Very nice.
Projected 2013 paroll is currently at $105,300,000 which is on par with last season. Although I was previously oppossed, Michael Bourn seems to be falling into our laps here. Do we make a strong 3-year offer?
Dont forget there is that guy named Mark Appel there in the draft as well that we could take with the second pick. He is further along than many of the prospects
It seems like we’ll take a college arm, but I’ll be a little disappointed of someone in the Maneaeaaeaeaeaea/Stanek grouping don’t break out and push Appel down the list.
Not sure he would be my choice over Stanek or Manaea or Frazier, but I think we all understand the gist of what you are saying.
Theo reminds me of the guys in fantasy baseball that draft nothing but pitchers and then expect me to trade offense for them.
Greinke – 6 years – $147 million – $24.5m/year
Villanueva – 2 years – $10 million – $5m/year
Jackson – 4 years – $52 million – $12m/year
Baker – 1 year – $5 million – $5m
Feldman – 1 year – $6 million – $6m
Cubs will spend $28m next year versus $29m ($17m salary and $12m signing bonus) for Greinke – not to mention the additional years. Bets on total WAR?
Just saying but wouldn’t Jackson’s deal be $13 million a year not 12.
The deal includes a no-trade clause, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports (on Twitter)
Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#ivHEX9jFySZ5l7sZ.99
Wtf seriously?
MLBTR didn’t read very carefully. No no-trade clause, says Heyman.
Ok good, I knew in your article it said there wasn’t one but then I saw that. That alone could have made this a bad deal.
Heyman’s tweet clearly stated NO no-trade clause. MLBTR was probably just in a hurry to get it up.
No, there is no no-trade clause. As in there isn’t a no-trade clause, like they can flip him if they want.
At least that’s what Heyman said on twitter.
i think we will be seeing a couple of these 1000000000000000 pitchers we signed being flipped for prospects at the deadline. hopefully we can keep building on the already growing farm system we have!
I agree with Jared’s point. These aren’t pitchers for our long-haul. Let’s be excited for future prospects/young players under control acquired from them.
I wanna tweet Garza that it’s ok to welcome them now but I don’t wanna jinx it …
While I’m not a big Edwin Jackson fan, his 200+ innings should be a godsend. Bullpen could be decent if they’re not so overworked.
Wait. We’re excited over signing Edwin Jackson, Scott Feldman, Carlos Villanueva, and an injured Scott Baker? Really?? Four mediocre-at-best/injured pitchers? And none of them are to be flipped? We’re excited for depth for depth’s sake?
We’re still rebuilding. Let’s just still rebuild. Jackson for four years is a bit much for me.
Somebody will be most likely flipped, you still have to be competitive, and the Jackson is just the beginning…
I’m hoping they’re all flipped. I hardly see any of these signings being with us when we’re truly competitive (and that won’t be 2014). Maybe Jackson as an innings eater will still be there, especially given the length of his contract.
But frankly none of these pitchers are going to make us a playoff contending team in 2013. None of them. And if you don’t make the playoffs, then there’s only one position you want: at the top of next year’s draft.
A 62-100 record is infinitely better than a 75-87
Ebenezer, is that you?
Not Ebenezer – a realist. We’re excited because it’s “something”. Something is not good enough to make us a playoff contender. And in our current rebuilding effort, if we’re not a playoff contender, then we might as well lose 100+ games.
The NL Central may be the worst division in baseball and there are 2 wild cards so, it’s not out of the question this team may actually compete. Also, who knows what other moves this front office will make over the next 2 1/2 months. Why wish for 100 losses when it’s possible to be playoff contender? If you think the best way to rebuild is to just get the best draft pick every year than you’ll be waiting 10 years. Theo’s using money to buy assets to potentially trade for prospects which is speeding up the rebuilding process. That’s why I’m happy, hooray we’ll be better sooner!
Just saying this year every team in the NL Central could possibly finish above 500 or close to it I wouldn’t say it’s the worst division.
Mick,
First, I don’t think the NL Central will be the worst division in baseball. All four other teams are better than the Cubs right now, in my opinion.
And also, I don’t want to build exclusively through the draft, because, as you astutely point out, that would take to dang long. All I want is about 4 or 5 top tier draft picks, because chances are a couple or more of them will turn out to be top tier talent. Baez is one (fortunately for us, as he was #9!), Almora is probably two, and this year will be three. Then the rest of the team can be filled out through other draft picks, int’l signings, free agency, and trades.
If Baker, Villanueva, and Feldman can be flipped for Christian Villanueva/Arodys Vizcaino-esque young players, then I’m all for those signings, too.
But Edwin Jackson? He’s not good enough to make us a playoff contender, and he isn’t bad enough to facilitate us receiving a top tier draft pick in 2014.
Here is the thing, after this draft and a potential Garza trade we will have a sufficient farm system to move forward IF we contend this year and don’t sell off a few more pieces.
If we don’t contend and sell off next year’s FA, then this will be the last “rebuilding” offseason.
Agreed, it’s too bad we’ll have to part with Garza though. If I were Theo (I’m not), I’d give Garza what he wants in arbitration. Just make it as smooth of a process as he wants, chum him up a bit, look like the cool guy. Maybe, just maybe, he signs back with us next offseason. He’s also got that real good rapport with Brett too
Hansman1982,
I don’t necessarily see that as definite. We all see what former top prospects Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters are presently doing, right?
There’s no guarantee that our present top prospects, Baez, Almora, Soler, and our future #2 draft pick, will do well. Now it’s likely that a couple of them will, but I would feel more comfortable adding one or two additional top 5 picks to that group.
Of course, I never said that. The reason you have a strong farm system is so that you can go out and get a David Price or a Roy Halladay via trade.
Odds are we will be lucky if 1 of Soler, Baez and Almora provides more than 1 career WAR.
“if we’re not a playoff contender, then we might as well lose 100+ games”
So if the Cubs had an exciting season but came up short of making the playoffs you would have preferred they had lost 100 games.
Not me. I actually enjoy watching my team win games.
No. I’d be happy if we were the LA Angels or Tampa Bay Rays from 2012. But of course we won’t be in 2013, so there’s no reason postulating a scenario where we’re one game short of the playoffs.
But in my opinion, pretty much anything below that level (**at the Cubs’ present stage**) is useless, unless it’s 100 losses.
You only quoted part of my statement above:
“And in our current rebuilding effort, if we’re not a playoff contender, then we might as well lose 100+ games.”
What I mean by this is last season for the KC Royals (where they won ~75 wins) was probably good for their organization’s development. But we’re not there yet.
Well no one is saying the Cubs are playoff bound at all. I think the excitement is that Jackson can certainly have some value to the Cubs when they are contending in a couple years. And most of the other guys will hopefully get us more young talent at the deadline, Maholm style..
Right, it’s not about the playoffs, it’s about seeing this FO attempting to improve this roster. We all want to see more than we saw last year, and adding this pitching depth goes a long way.
JR, I totally understand that. Why I’m adverse to the Edwin Jackson signing is that he’s not good enough alone to get the Cubs to the playoffs in 2013. But he’s also not bad enough to facilitate a top 3 draft pick in 2014.
If this guy was Zack Greinke, I’d sing a different tune. But there are plenty of Edwin Jacksons available every off-season. This type of pitcher was signed too early in the process, in my opinion.
What a bizarre position. You dislike Jackson because he isn’t Grenke. No joke he isn’t Grenke. He also cost $106 million less than Grenke. That’s just some tortured logic IMO.
JB88,
No, that’s not what I said. If it came across that way, I apologize. I don’t like Edwin Jackson because he’s Edwin Jackson, and the 2013 Cubs are the 2013 Cubs.
Edwin Jackson is not good enough alone to get the Cubs to the playoffs in 2013, but he’s not bad enough to facilitate a top 3 draft pick in 2014. And there are usually Edwin Jacksons available, so why not wait until after the 2013 season to acquire an Edwin Jackson?
I like Zack Greinke, because he’s Zack Greinke and would be a dynamic addition to any team. But that doesn’t mean I want the Cubs to acquire him. As you point out, his contract was quite high – probably absurdly so.
If we were to have signed Greinke (which I’m glad we didn’t, because of that ridiculous contract!), then I wouldn’t have griped from an organizational perspective, because his talent is that much higher than Jackson’s.
Does that clarify my stance?
They didn’t give Jackson a no-trade clause, and his contract wasn’t unreasonable.
He’s certainly an upgrade to what we had. What’s not to like? If we end up with 5 or 6 guys on our staff that are better, we can always trade him. I doubt that will happen anytime in the near future, though.
Let’s just celebrate the fact that we’re not just sitting idle right now. I’m glad to see they’re trying to improve the team.
Tommy,
That’s the thing. Sometimes being idle is ok, for me at least. Patience is a virtue.
I just don’t think Edwin Jackson was a smart acquisition, and that we would’ve been better off waiting. And beint patient.
But hopefully I’m wrong.
The Cubs clearly believe they won’t necessarily be able to get a guy just like Jackson next offseason. And, if they were coming off another 100 loss season, that might well be the case.
Brett,
With absolute all due respect, I’m not sure that is so clear. If they were able to get a guy like Jackson after this past 100-loss season, who’s to say for certain they couldn’t acquire an Edwin Jackson-type after a 100-loss season in 2013?
I know I sound like Ebenezer Scrooge, but I’m just trying to look at this from a pragmatic perspective, and after doing so, I don’t really like it.
Though, of course, I hope all of this works out for the best
I just don’t see any meaningful downside here. This isn’t a crippling – or even limiting – contract by any stretch.
And that’s the perspective even if you don’t like Jackson as at least a mid rotation guy.
I agree. I’m not as big on Jackson and personally, I wish we would have pushed harder for McCarthy but it’s not a bad signing and certainly not a crippling signing ie going to haunt us 3-4 years down the road.
Brett,
For me, the meaningful downside is that it makes them a little bit better, haha.
But, of course, the follow-up to that is a little bit better isn’t doing a whole lot for the 2013 Cubs. It only pushes them further from a top 3 2014 draft pick.
Oh, I totally get that piece (and, in some respects, agree with it). But the trade off for a better 2014 draft pick might have been further struggles in attracting good free agents (every consecutive terrible season makes it harder and harder). So, on that piece, I’m kind of ambivalent.
Chris, I understand the rebuilding process. But if the Cubs want to compete in 2014 or 2015, they have to start aquiring pieces now. You can just wait until Baez, Soler and Almora are ready to be paired wit Rizzo, Castro and Shark and then say ok, I’m going to sign 19 other free agents this year to compete. You aquire pieces 2 or 3 at a time and before you know, your team is pretty good. The FO gets an A to an A+ for the moves they made so far.
Chris, the Cubs have now signed 1 pitcher to a 1 year deal 3 to to year deals and Jackson’s 4 year deal. You look at the cubs minors and there are no sure bets for pitchers that will be solid rotation guys next year and maybe not for 2 years. So they aquire 4 pitchers that won’t block any prospects they could be traded easily and if a couple are they have legit mlb pitchers to replace them not AAA players. It also allows the cubs to develop their pitchers slower and not force them to trade assests to aquire starting pitching for a couple years so they can figure out if they can promote or or if they have to go free agency route
BluBlud,
You make a very good point. I’m disagreeing with the time to start acquiring said pieces. I’d have waited at least until after the 2013 season, because even after these signings, let’s be realistic – the Cubs *likely* won’t be competitive in 2014.
For fielding a competitive team, I think 2015 is the more (unfortunately) realistic target.
nkniacc13,
You make a fair point, as well. I want to be clear, though: I’m not opposed to the signings of Baker, Feldman, and Villanueva. They are low-risk, potential high-reward signings (the high reward being (from my hopeful perspective) we flip them for another Christian Villanueva or Arodys Vizcaino type). So I’m excited about them from that perspective – but certainly not from a “they’re going to make us better in 2013″ perspective. Outside of player development, I don’t care about 2013.
Edwin Jackson, on the other hand, makes little sense to me for the Cubs given their present state of affairs.
Listen, if the Nationals can suffer through consecutive seasons of upper 90s, low 100s loss seasons and end up with guys like Strasburg, Harper, Zimmermann, et al. as a result… well then surely the Cubs (with the most patient fan base in the world (and with great new player developers at the top)) can also wait.
There is currently only one under-30 starter who projects to be a free agent next offseason, Phil Hughes. Otherwise, no, the Cubs couldn’t get someone comparable to Jackson next year.
Theo and in turn Ricketts took a ton of heat last season for trading so many players and not having suitable talent to fill their spots. Now, when/if he trades Garza, he’ll at least have Baker, Villanueva, or Wood to step in. All of the starting pitchers signed, except for Baker, are all in their late-20′s, and have all been signed for less than 1 year of Greinke’s salary. Our bullpen and bench look a whole lot better too. Now this is what rebuilding on parallel fronts is suppossed to look like.
Jackson, according to xFIP has been just as good of a pitcher as Anibal Sanchez.
I agree…
With the frugle-ness of the cubs recently, I question this investment. I am NOT a GM-obviously. But just seems better talent has gone by, in the same price range at different positions, not just SP. Obviously hope its works out (as a Phoenix resident I watched Edwin as a DB) hoping for better results.
These pitchers and the strengthening of the bullpen may add 10 to 15 games to the cubs win column even without a new center fielder or third baseman. It appears as if we’ll be somewhat competitive in 2013.
I don’t like the Jackson move. There is a reason why he keeps moving from team to team. If the contract was 2 yrs, I would be Ok. I would rather keep Garza, but it looks like that he is destined to be traded. 2013 is not on my mind, we don’t have the skills to win anything, we have to accept that. 70 – 80 wins is what I expect.
This guy is getting #2 money and he is just OK.
Maybe being on a team for longer than half a season could help him. More stability…
The way the current pitching market is playing out, though, it seems that $13 million per season– what may have been #2 starter money in the recent past– is now more like #3 starter money.
Jackson was 26-22 with a 3.80 ERA and 1.31 WHIP in 74 regular-season starts since being traded to the White Sox at the deadline in 2010. Sanchez was 22-28 with a 3.79 ERA and 1.28 ERA in 75 starts over the same time period. He’s only six months younger than Jackson
nice point. I wanted Sanchez. Sanchez and Jackson would have great. But settle for jackson without Sanchez, I can deal that.
Better than nothing! We should win at least 65 games this year.
Why do you want to win 65 games? What good will that do you?
Wow, this is some good stuff. We are close to becoming legitimate challengers in the NL Central. If we do not trade anybody, and sign Bourn, then we can win the NL Central.
Sori and Rizzo are good for close to 30 HR
Stewart(if healthy) and Castillo 15-20 HR
Castro will breakout in 2013 with the power 20+
Add in Bourn and Dejesus High OBP at the 1 and 2 slot and our lineup becomes better then decent.
1 Bourn
2 Dejesus
3 Castro
4 Rizzo
5 Soriano
6 Castillo
7 Stewart
8 Barney
Garza
Shark
Jackson
Baker(when healthy)
Villanueva
Wood
Feldman
Marmol
Fujikawa
Russell
Wade
Rondon
Not close to best in the league but not a 100 loss team either.
Max value 90 wins
Min value 72 Wins
90 wins?! Wow
Are the Cubs moving to Japan?
Thats max value. That if Rizzo becomes a monster, Castro breaks out with a .320 25 HR type season. Soriano repeats last year. Castillo become legit. Stewart fights off the wrist and work ethics problem. Garza recovers. Villanueva become a good starter. Shark take a step foward, or at least repeats second half from last year. Bullpen play fairly well and we sign bourn.
I’m not saying we will win 90 games, I saying if everything works out, which it rarely does, then we can win 90.
Plus, don’t crush my hopes.
So basically if they play out of their minds like the Cardinals seem to do every year?
Or the Orioles and A’s last year.
You have to give yourself a chance to be that team every year. Baseball is weird. Teams sometimes perform 10-15 wins beyond what you expect going into the season.
The 1998 Cubs won 90 games with Steve Trachsel and Mark Clark as their 3 and 4.
Exactly what I’ve been saying for a month, before we got Jackson and Villanueva.
Funny comment. I thought same thing.
@ AlouStew I meant. 90 wins is a bit of stretch.
No. We can’t. This team will maybe produce 75 wins. And in the grand picture, 75 wins is much worse than 60 wins.
I would take 75+ wins in a heartbeat..the goal is to get prospects AND to do well, at the same time
Fair enough – but 75 wins isn’t doing well, in my opinion. 85-90+ wins and being a playoff contender is doing well. 100+ losses gets you another top 3 pick in the draft. Like the Washington Nationals before us, we need as many high end prospects as possible. Guys like Edwin Jackson can be had almost any off-season.
In my opinion we don’t need just any prospects – we need high end ones. We were lucky to nab Vizcaino (who’s injured anyway!) from Atlanta for Maholm. The method with the likeliest probability of acquire top-end talent is having very high draft picks. The combination of Baez (with whom we were lucky to draft), Almora, and our upcoming #2 is a start. I’d take another Top 3 pick in a heartbeat over 75 wins
In what world? Screw the draft. I’d rather see my team have a chance to win every night, and that starts with the rotation, and there has been lots of depth added there. And 75 wins is a huge improvement from last season. And personally, I’d rather see marked improvement every year than throwaway seasons. Keep building Cubs.
Exactly. There’s plenty of talent to draft with lower picks in the first round and all that losing 100 games gets you is a pissed off fan base, lower attendance, and another year of ridicule. With these signings the Cubs will have the deepest pitching staff since 2004.
And we’ll still miss the playoffs (though, of course, I hope I’m wrong (but I’m not)).
If the fans are pissed off, then they’re stupid. Who cares. We need to rebuild through acquiring high-impact young players, and the best way to do that is to have high draft picks.
Top draft picks are the most likely to be impact players. A Mike Trout, Albert Pujols, et al are diamonds in the rough
Chris, your way would take a decade to rebuild. By signing short term deals and flipping for prospects, this front office is speeding up the rebuilding process. Plus, it’s only December 20th, who knows what else this front office will do before ST.
MIck,
Same reply as above. I’ll paste the pertinent part.
And also, I don’t want to build exclusively through the draft, because, as you astutely point out, that would take to dang long. All I want is about 4 or 5 top tier draft picks, because chances are a couple or more of them will turn out to be top tier talent. Baez is one (fortunately for us, as he was #9!), Almora is probably two, and this year will be three. Then the rest of the team can be filled out through other draft picks, int’l signings, free agency, and trades.
If Baker, Villanueva, and Feldman can be flipped for Christian Villanueva/Arodys Vizcaino-esque young players, then I’m all for those signings, too.
Name the last 100 loss team that won a WS exclusively as a result of high draft picks.
name the last team, period, that won with nothing but homegrown talent
another JP,
I’m asking to make the playoffs and have a sustainable winning team from year to year. And hopefully a world series will come from that.
So the last team to lose 100 games in a season (both in 2008 and 2009) and make the playoffs was the Washington Nationals of 2012. And hopefully, from their perspective, their team can win games on a sustainable basis.
hansman1982,
No where ever in any of my posts today (or in any thoughts I’ve ever had) have I suggested the Cubs produce only homegrown talent.
I don’t know how you can believe that Wellington Castillo is able to produce 20 home runs. And those numbers up there are a best case scenario. You could see them possibly producing those numbers but it’s not probable. But otherwise ya this could be a pretty good team. Kinda makes you think about the A’s and Orioles from last year. The Dark Horses. The Central is gonna be tight though with the Reds, Cards will be competitive, Pirates will be up there kinda along with the Brewers.
You can’t say though, if we don’t trade anybody, because the rumors from this offseason so far are that we ARE gonna trade somebody. Besides Marmol. Possibly.
5 HRs in 190 Plate appearances; 15-20 is possible.
This is wildly and unrealistically optimistic. The spirit of a true Cubs fan.
The reason why he keeps moving from team to team could be a statistical anomaly. He’s a good pitcher. This team REALLY needs a center fielder, what are the best options that aren’t Michael Bourn?
Interested to see what the corresponding roster moves are. Trades?
I feel a trade is coming. At this point, unless we get blown away with a stud prospect, I don’t see a purpose in trading Soriano and eating 26 million. Why sign these guys and then trade soriano just to dump him. Also, I’m now moving from the trade Garza crowd into the extend Garza crown. If Villanueva works out, and with Garza, Jackson, and Shark in the mold, We can now afford to trade one of our top hitting prospect(Almora, Baez, Soler(perferably Almora) along with the up and coming Pitching prospects we have to TB for Price. We would then possibly have the best rotation in baseball.
Yeah I think the Front Office obviously has something up their sleeve. I doubt any of the young stud prospects will be moved, but who knows. And I don’t think Almora can be traded until next August, via the CBA.
Almora can’t be traded, your right. But by the time the Rays are ready to trade price, he will be eligible to be traded.
I highly, highly doubt this FO would trade Almora anyway, especially after how much they wanted him
Huh? Best rotation in baseball…
Price
Garza
Samardzija
Jackson
Villanueva
Forget about…?
Halladay/Lee/Hamels
Strasburg/Gonzalez/Zimmerman/Haren
Cain/Bumgarner/Lincecum
Kershaw/Greinke/Beckett
Dickey/Johnson/Buehrle/Morrow/Romero
I’m sure there are others I missed but that rotation wouldn’t be the best. Much much better but def not best.
Yes. Price is the best Pitcher in baseball. If Shark repeats last year second half performance. That would give us an ace as #2. If Garza stays on his career path of 3.70 ERA or close to it and Jackson provide similar value to sachez, as noted he has over the last couple of season’s, that would give us 4 pitchers, 2 with sub 3.00 ERA potential, and 2 with 3.somthing potential. That would give us a shot at having the best rotation in baseball.
You guys take everything so serious. I didn’t say that we have, or it’s garaunteed that we will be the best, just that there is potential for us to get there..
We’re nowehre near the best rotation in baseball, but when it comes to depth, we might be the best set.
I will give you most of those but you only list 5 deep for 1 team
dickey / johnson / buehrle / morrow / romero and I would take price / garza / samardzija / jackson / villanueva over them for the long hall maybe not 2013 but every year after that for sure.
Cliff Lee / Lincecum / Beckett / Buehrle / Haren all seem to be taking steps back their arrows are pointing down, where as the proposed Cubs lineup has all their arrows pointing up.
Agreed J Barnes. Oi ve, Cubs fans…..
Has any team ever signed 4 starting pitchers in one off season?
I hope this one does fall through…
I love Edwin Jackson as the Cubs #5 in 2014.
He wouldn’t be they’re number 5 more like a 2 or 3
blublud Put Fedman in with the starters he will win the most games out of the starters we signed
Put Feldman in too. Sorry I couldn’t help it.
It was sort of a pick who you think will be in there thing. It could very well be Feldman instead of Villanueva or Wood instead of baker, or all or neither. I just pull 2 names out of the hat.
Don’t sign Bourne. He is overrated. Make a trade for Crisp instead. When you compare stats, Crisp is almost as good as Bourne (just like Jackson’s numbers match up close to Sanchez). So we pick up two players for smaller contracts who will have similar production. Then extend Garza, keep Soriano and Marmal and we will have a strong team.
Ugh, no. Crisp is a right handed David DeJesus. I’d prefer to take out a flier on Delmon Young.
I believe Crisp is a switch-hitter.
Why the hell would you wanna keep Marmol?
I know there a lot of people who don’t like Keith Law, but he had Jackson #8 on his Top 50 Free Agents list, one spot ahead of Sanchez. I don’t agree with that, but it shows that there are experts who don’t see the talent difference being as big as the contract difference.
Law also had this in his chat:
Steve (Iowa)
Which contract and player would you have taken if you were the Cubs GM Anibal Sanchez 5yr/$80 or Edwin Jackson 4yr/$52?
Klaw (3:48 PM)
Jackson.