Keith Law Believes Kris Bryant Will Be the Most Expensive Pick in the Draft

Kris BryantAfter top pick Mark Appel signed for $6.35 million this week – $1.5 million under slot – I came to the conclusion that we’d seen the cap on what it would take to sign Kris Bryant, the Cubs’ selection at number two. You can read my thoughts on that subject here.

But ESPN’s Keith Law would say I’m wrong. Indeed, in a chat today, Law said that he believes Bryant will wind up getting the biggest bonus in the Draft this year. He softens that statement – in case you were worried – by noting that the Cubs surely knew approximately what it would take to sign Bryant when they drafted him.

It’s an interesting data point in a mostly speculative exercise (did anyone outside of the Cubs’ front office know that third rounder Jacob Hannemann was going to get seven figures?), and I respect Law’s opinion on this stuff. Remember: the Cubs can make Bryant the highest paid player in the Draft and still come in under slot for the pick ($6.7 million). Given the apparent rash of over slot signings in rounds three through nine, I remain confident that the Cubs know they’ll be able to sign Bryant to a deal that doesn’t push them into draft-pick-loss-penalty territory.*

So, in some ways, whether Bryant gets $6.2 million or $6.4 million is simply a matter of optics. That said, it would be nice to get him closer to the former so the Cubs have money left over to throw at additional over slot types from the later rounds.

The timing of Bryant’s signing remains something of a mystery, too. With Scott Boras guiding the negotiations, it would be easy to say that this thing is going to go until the deadline (July 12), but I’d imagine the Cubs would like to have it wrapped up before then, so they know where they stand with the rest of their bonus pool. In other words, the signing could come soon … or not.

Eventually, though, he’ll sign. There’s too little to gain by going back to school, and far too much to risk. Jim Callis reiterated last night that there’s no concern that Bryant won’t eventually sign.

*In case you’re wondering, yes, I’ll soon be writing about where the Cubs stand, financially, in the Draft so far.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

125 responses to “Keith Law Believes Kris Bryant Will Be the Most Expensive Pick in the Draft”

  1. BluBlud

    There is no way Bryant gets an overslot deal. The Cubs likely drafted him because they knew he would go overslot. If he agreed to go underslot before the pick, but then changes his mind now, then the Cubs could crush his credibility and cause him to slip in the draft next year, and lose even more money. The Cub will sign Bryant and save at least a million.

    1. BluBlud

      2nd sentence, overslot should be under slot.

    2. DocPeterWimsey

      There is zero reason to think that the Cubs thought Bryant would go underslot by any major amount. Moreover, “credibility” will have zero effect on interest in him next year: there is nothing here to deem credible or otherwise.

      1. Patrick W.

        It seems to me in my very uneducated guess that people outside of baseball put way more emphasis on things other than projected baseball skills in player/team negotiations. I would guess that very few teams use anything but what their best projections of how the player is going to play when making decisions about whom to sign. With the exception of extreme character issues that might project to hamper skills, how often does a player’s credibility come into play? I understand players might fall in the draft because of their perceived signability, but outside of that, if Bryant fails to sign, goes back to school and continues to crush the ball, he will be drafted based on his skills, not on his failure to sign this season.

  2. JB88

    Given the depth of overslot signings and the further number of juniors the Cubs selected, my gut tells me that Law is horrifically wrong. My gut also tells me that Law might be correct if Bryant and Appel were represented by different agents (but how the heck could Boras ever look Appel in the eye if he landed the No. 2 pick more than Appel when Appel was the clear No. 1 pick of both the Cubs and Astros).

    From a client-management perspective, I really think that Law is wrong. And if he is right, I’d love, love, love to see how Boras manages that client-relationship nightmare.

    1. SenorGato

      One is a senior arm while the other is a junior bat. Not too hard to deal with – start there.

      1. JB88

        Like most of the things you post, you and I disagree. I’ll leave it at that.

      2. terencemann

        I’m definitely with Gato. Bryant has leverage he can use to get a little more money. Given that Appel can’t return to college and is unlikely to pursue other options, his only goal at this point should be to get the majors as quickly as possible and holding out until the fall would hamper that. Bryant could demand the full slot or a little over slot and the Cubs would have to work with him.

        1. JB88

          I disagree with your perception of Appel’s leverage. Appel has/had until the next draft to sign this agreement, but all non-seniors needed to sign their agreements by mid-July. If he had refused to agree to terms before then, Houston could not sign any of its picks for more than slot + 4.9999%. While Appel is a senior and that does negate some leverage, the late signing date is a huge chip that could have compromised Houston’s entire draft strategy. He easily could have held Houston up for more money.

          But given that he didn’t, there are clearly some other factors in play. To me, the most likely is that he had a prearranged deal with Houston based on predraft negotiations.

          1. #1lahairfan

            Kind of what I was thinking.

    2. MDel

      I understand the perception of Boras, but don’t misinterpret him trying to get the most money for his clients as “he is a bad agent.” He represents his players. Based on his reputation, players that want to make the most money may give him a nod because of his reputation. But if one of his clients approaches him and says, “Hey, this is my boyhood team. I want to play for them and help them in the process. Let’s get the best deal we can under those constraints.” Being a good agent, he is going to do that.

      We don’t know what Appel said to Boras, but I assume Boras did his job and represented him to the best of his abilities. Bryant may have a completely different perspective on these negotiations, and he may be looking for more money. Appel may be happy he took Boras’ advice last year, was drafted by his home town team, and is already in camp. It could be win-win for Boras regardless of how the Bryant negotiations turn out.

      1. JB88

        I think there are a few problems with this scenario, though:

        (1) Boras represented Appel last year and was in consideration for the No. 1, but wouldn’t take the deal Houston was offering;

        (2) Appel was in negotiations with Chicago and Houston this year and worked out an agreement to go to Houston at No. 1. From a negotiation standpoint, if all the Astros paid for Appel was $6.35MM and the Cubs had the ability to pay Appel $6.7MM, it means the Cubs weren’t willing to pay Appel more than $6.349999MM. Why does this matter? Well, the speculation was that Appel was NO. 1 on the Cubs’ draft boards. If that were the case, why would the Cubs agree to pay Bryant more than they were willing to pay Appel? And, moreover, why was there a 5 minute delay between Houston’s pick and when Chicago selected Bryant. During that time, they were clearly hammering out an understanding as to the terms of the bonus.

        To me, given that Boras was at that negotiation and those extra 5 minutes, suggest that Bryant isn’t getting more than Appel. He might be getting similar dollars, but I’m skeptical even of that, given the number of overslot picks the Cubs made, the bonuses already given out, and the number of players they are still trying to sign.

        At the end of the day, I’d be very surprised if Bryant got more than $6MM.

        1. MDel

          I understand your point, but you are making broad generalizations to prove it. I could just as easily pull out similar “facts” like Appel told Houston I don’t care if the Cubs are offering me more money, just give me $6.35 because I want to come home.

          At the end of the day Bryant may or may not get more money than Appel All I’m saying is that Boras is a good agent who, above all else, will represent what his clients want. I’m sure he walks through the scenarios, and may have told Appel he is leaving money on the table. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Bryant will ask for.

          I’m not saying Bryant isn’t going under slot, but the arguments you are making are speculative. At least have someone in the lobby taking pictures with there cell phones of these conversations before you dream them up! (Sorry, too soon yet?)

          1. JB88

            You are equally guilty of broad speculation. And, candidly, everyone on this board who is discussing any of this is as well, including Brett, Luke and others.

            But having taken place in hundreds of negotiations, I am pretty familiar with how they operate and I feel pretty confident that given Appel not agreeing to go to Houston last year and the negotiations occurring between Houston and Appel this year, that my supposition is probably pretty accurate.

        2. Scotti

          “From a negotiation standpoint, if all the Astros paid for Appel was $6.35MM and the Cubs had the ability to pay Appel $6.7MM, it means the Cubs weren’t willing to pay Appel more than $6.349999MM.”

          What the Cubs were willing to pay Appel meant nothing to Houston or, in reality, Appel. He was drafted by Houston and the negotiations were between the two of them–not the Cubs. What the Cubs WOULD have offered is immaterial because Houston has his rights and the Cubs had zero bearing on those negotiations. Appel: “You have to pay me more because the Cubs would have paid me more.” Houston: “Yeah, right!”

          1. JB88

            If these negotiations were conducted in a bubble, you might be right, but it is pretty clear that Boras was playing Houston and the Cubs off one another until Houston had met that demand. If you don’t believe that Houston and Appel had an understanding in place before the draft as to what they were going to pay him, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Arizona.

            1. Patrick W.

              Right, but remember the whole of these negotiations. In 2012, Appel had a realistic if slightly risky alternative to not reaching an agreement with Houston, and that was to go back to school and continue to dominate and increase his value in a weak draft in 2013. This year his best alternative put him in much weaker bargaining position and so he was automatically prone to getting less than slot value, but more than he would have received last year. Bryant is in a similar position to Appel with the exceptions that he can only improve his draft position by 1 spot, but that one spot could mean $1.5MM in slot value, and $2MM + in final value.

              1. JB88

                There is more to the Appel 2012 negotiations, though, than meet the eye. At the top of the list is a respect issue, which I think both Pittsburgh and Houston failed to take into account in their dealings with Appel.

                Second, while it is easy to say that $2M is really on the table for Bryant, that strategy is HUGELY risky. 2014 is a better draft class, Bryant had a historic year, which might not be repeatable, and there is no guarantee that he is the No. 1 or No. 2 selection next year.

                For Appel, going at No. 8 only offered him a slot value of $2.9MM, whereas the No. 1 or No. 2 picks offered almost $4MM more at a minimum. Gambling over $4MM seems worth it. Gambling over $2MM when the likelihood of getting that extra $2MM is pretty small, doesn’t make sense to me in this case.

                1. Patrick W.

                  I don’t think we are disagreeing here. I’m simply saying that Appel’s alternatives this year were worse than Bryant’s are, and that *might* lead to Bryant signing a larger bonus than Appel. Appel’s likely only fell to the Pirates at 8 is because once Houston passed on him (reportedly offering a $6MM bonus), it seemed pretty clear that he was going to be a problem to sign. For Pittsburgh it was a fairly decent gamble: They were likely to improve their record in 2012 (at the time they had they were sitting on the 15th pick and they ended up with the 14th) and not signing Appel gave them a top 10 pick in 2013 to go with whatever pick they would end up with. Appel didn’t gamble for $4MM, he was never going to sign for less than $6MM. He gambled for about $2MM and (arguably) lost.

                  1. Patrick W.

                    Sorry, on Draft Day Pittsburgh was sitting at 20 in the draft order and ended up 14.

        3. Rebuilding

          Ummm. Isn’t it possible that both the Astros and Cubs wanted Bryant and the pitchers were a smokescreen and when Bryant wouldn’t go underslot the Astros took Appel? Both of the front offices have stated repeatedly that they prefer a bat over an arm this high in the draft

          1. Rebuilding

            My guess is that the Cubs were prob certain Houston was taking Bryant given their history with Appel and stated preference. When the Stros took Appel it prob took them a little off guard and it prob keyed them in that Bryant wasn’t taking underslot. I’m sure they had to call Boras to see what he was demanding at #2 causing the delay

            I don’t think it’s surprising. Bryant simply has a little more leverage than Appel

          2. SenorGato

            This is very possible. We know they think hitters are safer than pitchers. Bryant was also a big bat in his first two seasons.

      2. CubsFaninMS

        All of the strategy talk and speculation here is fun to talk about but I think there are a few key points that we have to keep in mind…

        1) Every action at the front office hints that they want to compete in the 2015 to 2017 window of time (and hopefully consistently beyond that). Not signing Bryant as the #2 overall pick is a significant setback to those plans, unless our front office knows something unique about the 2014 draft that we don’t.

        2) They’ve signed several players overslot, indicating that either (a) they’re confident that Bryant will sign underslot or (b) they don’t mind playing a high-stakes game to lose Bryant in the draft. Option B does not seem very likely.

        3) Bryant is a junior, true, but with a stronger draft class in 2014 and he being the #2 overall pick in this year’s draft, it would be a huge gamble for him to expect better results and better slot money next year. Also, if he plans on being a Major League player, why not get the signing bonus at age 22 so he has an extra year of income? If he becomes an MLB regular, he will retire at age (x) and will have an extra year of income because of him signing a year early. That’s more of a “selling point” but I believe it’s valid.

        I say there is a 90% change he will sign based on these factors.

  3. SenorGato

    The major thing to take away is that Bryant wont be had for pennies like many/most seem to hope and believe. This is a good thing. Top talent should not be cheap.

    The first indicator should have been hiring Boras in February or whenever that was.

    1. When the Music's Over

      Beyond that, let’s say Bryant pans out and is a beast his first two years, what’s the precedent with Boras clients signing long term deals where both the team and the player win? Similar to Castro/Rizzo etc.

    2. LouBrown

      Pennies? Really? I am still waiting to hear your thoughts on how he gets to be the highest paid player in the draft? By saying Boras three times, clicking his heels together, and the millions come pouring in. He was the second overall pick in the draft, the only way he improves his position is by becoming the first pick next year, in a stronger class, when the team holding the 1st pick just drafted a comparable third baseman. As long as he gets offered between our slot and the 3rd pick slot, he has no viable options. Unless he wants 3 – 4 million next year, and to be a year further behind the ML development curve, and a year later to the arb hearing if he makes it. If he becomes the highest paid player in this draft, our front office needs to go back to negotiating 101.

      1. SenorGato

        What is a “stronger draft?” Who is clearly a better prospect than Bryant right now of the 2014 crop? Rodon? Pitching prospects are just as injury prone or generally volatile as *Insert Greedy Returning Senior* getting the leverage lecture this year.

        The fact of the matter is, they are not going to not sign him. To sign him for $6.4 million they would only have had to spend $4,684,325 on the rest of the draft before going over 5%. If it’s confirmed they are above that then he’s not getting $6.4 million.

  4. Dynastyin2017

    I could care less how much he signs for, as long as the Cubs have enough money to sign who they want. I’d just love to see him sign soon and start playing. With the Big League team getting ready to sell, I want another minor league player to bookmark. Dreaming on the future is much more appealing than watching the ‘present’.

  5. Dynastyin2017

    Brett, looking forward to the financial report, but I’m guessing if the Cubs don’t sign Bryant, they are already in danger of going over their +5%, thus losing next years draft pick. This FO won’t let that happen.

    1. ssckelley

      There is no danger of that happening. The Cubs can go about their business of signing their draft picks and at the end of the day if Bryant still is not signed you give him whatever is left plus the 5% overage. The Cubs have a lot more leverage here than some think, it is highly improbable that Bryant goes back to school and can improved his draft position (and bonus money) next year. If he did go back to school he would have even less leverage even if the Marlins or Astros did draft him at #1 overall.

      1. Dynastyin2017

        Don’t disagree with you. I was just making the point that the FO has a deal in place with Bryant already. If they didn’t, no way would they risk next years top 5 pick, by going overslot on some of the guys they signed already.

  6. The Dude Abides

    Theo is playing this out at his speed he has 2 – 10 signed and now he knows exactly what he has to spend, always the smartest guy in the room.

    Also seeing how Appel already signed under it appears the Astros did their homework as well allowing Bryant to fall to us.

    Bryant deserves to be highest paid and Boras will make that happen since he also knows how much the Cubs have.

    Player’s of the year don’t come cheap!!!

    1. gocatsgo2003

      The obvious wrench in those plans would be any further anticipated overslot signings in picks 11-40 (we already know about Clifton, could be a guy like Alamo).

  7. King Jeff

    I never understood how college and high school players could have agents and still go back to school if they don’t get what they want. Isn’t that one of the big no-no’s in other sports? Does baseball get a free pass on it?

    1. ChrisW

      They call them advisors.

    2. hansman1982

      As part of the bargaining chip, yes. If MLB teams know that drafted kids NEVER go back to school, it isn’t an item they can be threatened with.

  8. David

    I know this is a bit off subject… I’m a huge Almora fan, Bryant seems like he’ll be pretty good, as well. But the cubs had a chance to draft both Appel and Grey in this and last years draft. Disregarding sign ability and $$$$, who would you rather have: Appel/ Gray or Almora/ Bryant???? Something to be debated……

    1. Chad

      Appel/Bryant would be nice. But I really like Almora as well. I think he will be a stud. And I doubt the Cubs get Appel signed last year either.

    2. Serious Cubs Fan

      Appel/ Gray- I feel since they are pitchers are much much more risky because they are an elbow/shoulder injury away from flaming out
      Almora/ Bryant- Being hitter are less risky commodities. Still risk with them for sure but that just the nature of the prospect business.

      Either way all 4 of them are likely to be ranked top 30 prospects at the beginning of next season (knock on wood: with regards to (Almora/ Bryant)

  9. Dustin S

    My guess is that Boras has simply been been primarily focusing on the Appel negotiations, and now that those are complete he’ll start spending more attention on Bryant’s deal. I’d probably do the same thing in his shoes. Bryant signing is not something I’m too worried about. His over or under slot won’t be enough to drastically change the pool if the Cubs are fine with giving Hanneman $1M. The only way he doesn’t sign is if he really (really) badly doesn’t want to play specifically for the Cubs, and would rather go a team like Miami next year. In fact I would say anyone in the top few picks that is willing to pass up life-changing money and risk regressing or getting hurt for a little more money is completely bonkers. At #8 last year like Appel did, he rolled the dice and it worked out. But Bryant would be nuts to after the year he had at the #2 pick with basically nothing to gain by risking it, so it’s only a matter of time until he signs IMO. I’m just looking forward to getting him in the system in Arizona and start things rolling.

  10. Adam

    Didn’t the cubs do a similar thing with last years draftees. They waited until the last day and gave Almora whatever was left … I’m assuming an agreed range was predetermined. Boras was also Almora’s agent I believe.

    1. Bigg J

      Not a bad plan to do that…..just tell him to sign for what they can offer him and tell him he has possibility to get to the pros late next year instead of going to school for another year and waste time

  11. Patrick W.

    Has anybody on this board taken place in hundreds of negotiations? If so I have a question :)

    1. DarthHater

      I have taken part in lots of negotiations, but I have never taken place in one.

      1. Patrick W.

        Well then, clearly, you are not from 1911, when these phrases were interchangeable.

        1. DarthHater

          Are you kidding? Why, I helped Teddy Roosevelt negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War of 1905! :-P

          1. Sven-Erik312

            Well Darth old buddy, you still gotta solve that nasty Sakhalin island problem!

        2. hansman1982

          Listen here, sonny boy, I ain’t gonna let you and these new fangled horseless carriages run off with my english language. Lest I brand you a Dixie Democrat!

          Or something like that.

          1. DarthHater

            Pretty sure the phrase “Dixie Democrat” may only date from 1948.

            1. Internet Random

              In the interest of continuing my scat theme, “shit” is one of the oldest words in our language.

              1. DarthHater

                It has been an important subject for a very long time.

          2. Cheryl

            Some say the new fangled horseless carriages had their start in France, not the U.S. As for TR, he and Mark Twain could never come to an agreement in regard to negotiations – they liked their own stands better.

      2. Internet Random

        I, on the other hand, have taken place in lots of negotiations, but have never taken a dump in one.

        Though that might be an effective tactic, depending on the circumstances.

        1. mudge

          Negotiating a dump is challenge enough for me.

          1. Internet Random

            Prunes.

          2. Dynastyin2017

            Maybe you should go with the ‘take it or leave it’ strategy.

    2. JB88

      Guilty as charged. Obviously a poor turn of phrase. But yes, I have taken part in hundreds of negotiations.

      1. Patrick W.

        This turned into a making fun of people infinity loop.

        1. DarthHater

          My whole life is a making fun of people infinity loop.

        2. JB88

          If you can’t accept being made fun of, message boards are the wrong place for you. Thankfully, I’m fairly thick skinned and more than willing to take a jab when I write something that could be mistaken for prose from Woodrow Wilson.

          1. Patrick W.

            I was actually poking fun at your *occasional* mentions of your negotiations history, and used he same phrase as you coincidentally. :)

            1. JB88

              Well if I’ve mentioned more than once, I guess I was wearing my “Look at me: I’m important” hat and deserve as much ridicule as you can heap upon me …

              1. DarthHater

                Careful. We can heap a lot. :-P

              2. Internet Random

                2f32e1db-fc46-4898-9bdb-8c8a6f502c26.jpg

                1. DarthHater

                  vip_hat-r0baaaeaa279c4164bbffb7535eaf41e6_v9wfy_8byvr_216.jpg

                  1. JB88

                    It has that picture but image it on a Stetson.

                    Out of curiosity, DarthHater, do you happen to post on Hockey Buzz? Your posting style and quick use of photos seemed quite similar to someone who posts there.

                    1. JB88

                      Image = imagine.

                    2. DarthDiehard

                      No, I don’t. OMG, there is another … Skywalker.

                    3. DarthHater

                      Oops. ;-)

  12. Kevin

    Keith Law is not always right, if he was, he wouldn’t need to work. I’m tired listening to this guy.

  13. Serious Cubs Fan

    The Cubs are 3rd in the league in pitches per plate appearance, according to Carrie Muskat.
    I am very pleasantly surprised. https://twitter.com/CarrieMuskat/status/347786759834324995

  14. Austin

    I’ve said before I have connections with David Gardners mom and there was two players that failed their physical. (David did his physicals at the same time) I won’t name the players but one is an easy guess. I will say that one player did have an undisclosed injury that he never informed the team about. Just some info to pass along.

    1. wvcubsfan

      Interesting. How would this affect the bonus pool money under the new CBA if this were to happen to a player drafted in the first 10 rounds?

      1. Austin

        My guess is it would be just like not signing the player. Teams could exploit that by drafting players they know wouldn’t pass a physical to get the money at their slot with no penalty.

      2. Thompsonville, Il_Cubs

        West Virginia cubs fan! I lived in southern WV for 2 years and thought was the only cubbîe!

    2. Starwin Bastro

      Not doubting your source at all, but his name is David Garner. Adds a little more credibility to it

      1. Austin

        Yea that’s my fault, a mix of big fingers on a phone and being a Michigan fan im used to Gardner.

  15. DarthHater

    Okay, this story isn’t related to the Cubs, but it’s pretty awesome, so I’m sharing the link:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sns-rt-msc-newsl1n0ew03v-20130620,0,5667111.story

    1. Internet Random

      If they don’t have Mark Ruffalo play her in the movie they make from this story, someone has failed at casting.

      1. DarthHater

        LOL

      2. JB88

        Wow is that an ugly woman. Reminds me of Kristen Wiig’s character from the Four Sisters sketch.

        187904.jpg

  16. 70'scub

    Simply put these first round negotiations better have occurred before the draft happened.

  17. EQ76

    IF the Cubs knew what it would take to sign Bryant when they picked him, then why the hell is it taking so long for him to sign. I’m not 100% sure that the Cubs knew that for sure. I understand the Boras thing, but Appel was a Boras client too..

    1. gocatsgo2003

      Because Boras wants him to get every penny available, which likely means the rest of the draft class would have to be either signed or agreed to a hard number.

    2. DarthDiehard

      IRS is holding up the Bryant signing as part of the tax evasion investigation.

      1. CubsFaninMS

        Is Bryant a member of the Tea Party?

    3. Cyranojoe

      It sounds like the signing must be contingent on a physical, and after the physical he’d have to get to work. Rumors are saying that Bryant wants a break, so the delay is actually the Cubs giving him that break. Hey, last year we had to wait until the last day or so, so I wouldn’t stress until after the Fourth of July.

    4. Jimmy James

      Thought he was on vacation and unavailable for a physical at the moment…..it’s just a matter of time before we find out how much he cost the cubs

  18. Rebuilding

    The Astros are playing really well right now. With a big sell off the #2 pick is possible

  19. abe

    my guess is they have underslot deal in place, but are waiting to sign. this way the cubs can try to sign more players with the extra money, but if they don’t then that money goes to bryant.

  20. Ramy16

    Funny guys.. Remember that Volstad guy.. Well just just DFA by the Rockies..makes ya say hmmm.. Wonder what Theo was thinking when he traded for this guy

    1. Danny Ballgame

      He was thinking “Get this fucking Zambrano guy out of my franchise”. It was one of the new regimes easiest and best moves

      1. Stevie B

        That’s funny , Danny.

        Thanks.

    2. Patrick

      We traded garbage for garbage with that Volstad trade. The cubs got a guy with decent potential for Zambrano which was quite good at the time. Not all talent pans out, but you should also remember Zambrano didn’t do well with Miami either so it’s not like either team really gained much.

    3. Cubsleeram

      He was probably thinking, “Hey, I got an actual player for Zambrano! I thought I was gonna have to settle for a McFlurry coupon!” Now granted, in retrospect, the McFlurry coupon would have been the better deal, but I’ll give Theo a pass on that one.

    4. Rebuilding

      Getting a living human being for Zambrano was an accomplishment at that point.

      1. Jp3

        This is news to me that Volstad had a pulse…

    5. Cyranojoe

      Volstad lasted in MLB longer than Zambrano did, from the point of the trade. So you’re saying… what?

      1. baldtaxguy

        Z is back – in Phillies org

      2. Jp3

        How so, Z has pitched 132.1 innings since the trade with a 4.49 era while Volstad has thrown 119.2 with an era of 6.31 last year and a 10.something last year before the Rockies demoted him… So what’s your point exactly…

        1. Jp3

          10.something this year, typo. Yes and Z has a chance too to come back up this year… Theo gets a pass on that one because everyone needed a change in scenery.

          1. Cheryl

            I know Z was a problem, but its interesting that both Z and Soriano blew up at our one time closer. Coincidence or closer to the truth about Marmol than we realize?

  21. Fastball

    No way this FO is doing all these other over slot deals without this deal being being inked. These guys are smart businessmen. If they didnt have this deal they would be in trouble with penaties all over the 1st 10 picks. They have already spent more than they have in the budget for those slots.

  22. Rebuilding

    Watching Rodon pitch at the CWS. His stuff is electric. Just made Moran look foolish on 3 straight pitches. Would love to have a chance to draft him next year

  23. Cubs1974

    Sveum was never a good player and yes he was well liked but their is a reason why Milwaukee never gave him a chance to become the manager…….I said it the day Epstien hired him and the rest are starting to see what I called from jump street……He is not Major League manager material……….If you don’t truly understand it was Epstiens Ego who cost us the man who should be here,you are in denile………

  24. Cubs1974

    Its simple………Just ask yourself a serious question..If Sandberg was here(like he should be) and if Epstien said the cubs should go one way and Sandberg disagreed and said I’m the manager and I am going this way(which happens all the time..just look at Billy beane and Art Howes History)……..Who would the majority of the Fans side with………..and be honest

    1. mjhurdle

      It actually more simple than that.
      Ask yourself, if Sandberg didn’t do his job and obey the directives of his superiors, and then got fired, who would really care who sided with who?
      would fans siding with a fired manager get more runs across the plate?
      would it result it more strikeouts?
      be honest.

  25. Cubs1974

    Cubs will never hoist the Trophy with Sveum at the helm……Way to many bad decisions

  26. Cubs1974

    I totally agree with ya Kyle Castro taking the day off it will get worse,but that’s not castro’s fault or even Sveum…………..That Fault Lies straight with Ep and Hoyer………..They have money to spend and have gotten no All Star Talent………

  27. Cubs1974

    You have to give your Manager a Chance to win and Ricketts,Ep and Hoyer have failed all their players,Fans and Manager…but the cubs would be better with Sandberg…….If you don’t think Castro looks at Sveums career and then his own and thinks”Man who are you to tell me,I have more talent in my left hand then you have had in your life”..your crazy if you don’t think he has said it or thinks it………He couldn’t every think that way with sandberg…Ya every one is alittle in denile at 22,but he isn’t that much in denile

    1. BT

      Exactly. Because every knew Tony LaRussa was a better player than they were, so they had to play well under him. Same with Whitey Herzog and Jim Leyland and Tommy Lasorda and Bobby Cox. Awesome major leaguers, awesome managers. The list goes on and on. It also explains why the Dodgers are so awesome this year, because Mattingly was such a great player. If anything, time has proven over and over that great players make great managers, and bad players make bad managers. Amiright?

      1. Jp3

        Shoot BT!!! You beat to being sarcastic again by one post!!😜 Is it me or does something smell like Jeffg in these last few posts?

    2. Jp3

      Ummm… What???

    3. CubsFaninMS

      *denial…

      …it’s not a river in Egypt.

  28. Cubs1974

    The old saying………”Those that Can’t do Teach”………That’s the problem with the cubs right now from the owner down……

  29. Cubs1974

    Actually even at Sec Taylor in the 70′s we knew that Tony was something special and made from the same cloth of the Major League Managers……I can remember as a kid my dad and my Grandpa saying that Larussa was going to be Famous in the future……My grandpa used to say that no minor league Manager ever had the Des Moines Media’s attention as much as tony did………Sveum is no Tony and never will be,so lets not compare him in the same sentence……..Larussa deserves better

    1. BT

      Cubs1974, I’ve got some GREAT news! Sveum was actually a BETTER major leaguer than LaRussa was! So by the (now named) Cubs1974 Theory of Players Playing Better Via Respecting Their Managers MLB Career, Sveum should be an even BETTER manager than LaRussa!

      So we’ve got that to look forward to.

  30. Cheryl

    Do we really know how much micromanaging is being done? We don’t know how much of Castro’s problem is is Sveum’s or Theo’s or just Castro’s. There are two things that fall squarely on Castro IMO. One, his concentration and two his tendency to ignore the strike zone. Sveum is a puzzlement in terms of how he handles things. Why he doesn’t give Castro days off is a real question. Its clear that Sveum doesn’t have a good team to manage but even if he did I’m not convinced he could do the job.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.