nobody effs with dejesusIn a serious surprise, the Chicago Cubs have today traded outfielder David DeJesus to the Washington Nationals, against whom they begin a four-game series today.

Because of his reasonable contract, veteran presence, and adequate production in center field, DeJesus was expected not to clear waivers in August. If he was claimed on waivers, he could be traded, but only to the team that claimed him. At this point, it isn’t known whether DeJesus cleared waivers and was traded to the Nats, or was claimed by the Nats and subsequently traded.

Either way, it’s a surprise. Although Junior Lake’s emergence as a maybe-possible guy for 2014, DeJesus still offered the ability to play all over the outfield and offer quality at bats, particularly at the top of the lineup. The Cubs had control over him for 2014 on a $6.5 million option, which may have made him more attractive to the Nationals (though it makes for an expensive 4th outfielder).

Don’t let the PTBNL return get you down just yet. We’re approaching the end of the minor league season, and it could be that the Cubs are legitimately just choosing between a couple nice prospects. This way, the Cubs get a little more evaluation time.

Obviously we’ll have more on this as it comes out.

UPDATE: Carrie Muskat and Mark Gonzales both also report the trade. Brian Bogusevic will be activated from the disabled list, and will take DeJesus’s spot on the roster, per Gonzales. Given that the Cubs can also bring back Bogusevic on the cheap next year if they like him, it’s all the more understandable that they’d like to open up a spot for him for “try-out” purposes. Keep in mind, Ryan Sweeney will soon be back as well, and he’s another possible option for 2014.

UPDATE 2: The Cubs have confirmed. DeJesus for a PTBNL. Had this deal come at the Deadline, there would be no surprise at all, so I suppose – in terms of roster construction and long-term plan – there’s no surprise today, save for the fact that it was a waiver deal.

UPDATE 3: The money aspect of the deal breaks down thusly: the Cubs save about $1 million in salary this year, and then save the $1.5 million buyout on DeJesus’s 2014 option (the minimum to which they’d be obligated). While money hopefully wasn’t the motivator here, it obviously matters.

UPDATE 4: Speculating on the return, I’d think it would probably be in the range of what the Cubs got for Scott Hairston (also from the Nationals). That was pitching prospect Ivan Pineyro, who has thrown very well at High-A. He was a 20 to 30 organizational guy.

UPDATE 5: Although I’ll discuss this more later, Ken Rosenthal says DeJesus was claimed on waivers by the Nationals, which gave the Cubs the opportunity to be off the hook for the $2.5 million referenced above. If that was the approach all sides were taking, the return here might be pretty slim. In other words, had he cleared waivers, it would have been possible for the Cubs to chip in some salary to land a decent prospect (not every team views a $6.5 million 3rd/4th outfielder as a good investment). Since he did not, and the Cubs and Nats worked out a deal, I’m thinking the money was the biggest part of the deal from the Cubs’ perspective.

  • Bret Epic

    Sweeney is going to come back soon, and I’d like to see what he’s capable of in a larger sample size. Not to mention he has great hair.


  • Robert Johnson

    He’s having a good year compared to most in the Cub line up.

  • On The Farm

    Did anyone else notice that the David DeJesus trade got almost four times the amount of comments as the Braun Bashing post. Never would have guessed that.

    • miggy80

      I think Brett said something to the affect but it’s just like why waste your time and effort on someone like that. He pretty much doesn’t exist in my book.

    • Jason P

      There’s 4 pages of comments but not as many per page.

      • On The Farm

        there is also 52 responses to the Braun post and 247+ on the post. I am not speaking of pages.

  • Richard Nose

    Hasn’t been any update on the PTBNL from the Garza deal has there?

    • MichiganGoat

      The Garza PTBNL is Neil Ramirez unless the Cubs don’t like his return from injury then it 2 PTBNL which I’ve never heard any names.

      • Richard Nose

        That was the last I heard too, thanks brochacho.

        • cards suck

          Please tom go play with your bison and sell the cubs

          • Cubbie Blues

            His name is Richard, not Tom. If you know him well enough to know he has bison, you would think you would know his name.

  • Jason P

    Dejesus was one of my favorite players. If there was an at bat, bottom of the ninth, 2 down, tying run in scoring position, Dejesus is one of the few players on the Cubs I’d want coming to the plate. Consistent quality AB’s and squared up baseballs.

    That said, I can see wanting to give Sweeney and Bogusevic extended playing time. I’m much higher on Sweeney than Bogusevic, and I think Sweeney could stick around for a while as a defensive replacement/first bat off the bench.

    The money aspect of this deal kind of irks me though. We traded Torreyes for cash, we’re not going after Abreu because we have no cash, Soriano was traded in part for salary relief (though we got an okay prospect in that deal, so I won’t complain too much), and I wouldn’t be surprised if we just took the cash part of the “PTBNL or cash” deals for players like Hairston, Moscoso, Carpenter, Lillibridge, Gonzalez, etc. Ricketts got his increased signage and jumbo-tron, he’ll get an increase TV revenue over the next few years, and he’s already lowered the payroll over $40 million since he took over. You’d think he could spare the extra couple million to keep around useful pieces or get better prospects in return in a trade for said useful pieces.

    • Scotti

      “Ricketts got his increased signage and jumbo-tron…”

      None of which should ever have been at issue (NO other major professional team deals with those issues) and A ) the videoboard isn’t even built yet (much less ads sold). B ) Much of the revenue from the videoboard and ads will go to paying off the rebuild at Wrigley.

      • Jason P

        I never said the board was some generous gift from the city. The Cubs deserved the ability to maximize revenue from their product, and they got that.

        “the videoboard isn’t even built yet (much less ads sold)”… so? It’s already been approved and it’s guaranteed revenue in the future. If you’re going to bring up that they haven’t actually profited from the board yet, then I’m going to bring up that he hasn’t yet had to start paying for the renovation.

        Ricketts has been great paying for the renovation; I’m not taking that away from him. A lot of owners wouldn’t have done anything without public aid. But here’s the thing: the video board is expected to pay for the entire renovation within the next decade on its own accord. That’s saying nothing of the revenue the tax breaks, hotel, night games, concerts, Cubs plaza, etc. will produce/save. The Cubs payroll, after trades this year, will finish at about $100 million, or more than $45 million less than it was when Ricketts got here. I understand the logic behind it: if you’re going to suck anyway, you want to suck cheaply, and big free agents won’t help you anyway. But when that money is needed to net a better prospect in a trade or sign a potential monster on the IFA market for less than market value, it needs to be there. Despite the ridiculous financial restrictions an unrenovated Wrigley field places on the Cubs, and despite how badly they stunk, they were still one of the most profitable franchises in baseball. And the Ricketts family is worth over $1 billion already.

        We are a large market team. Everyone brings up how this rebuild won’t last a decade because our market size will help speed up the process. But we’re not acting like a large market team. When Alfonso Soriano’s contract comes off the books after next year, if we don’t add any big-name free agents, our payroll may wind up in the bottom third in the league. If we had landed Darvish and Cespedes (and there were rumors Epstein wanted to bid more but was told he couldn’t) we might be talking about a rebuild that’s practically over.

  • When the Music’s Over

    I am beginning to wonder if the Cubs 2014 MLB beginning year payroll will exceed $90M.

    Unless the Cubs make two large FA splashes at OF, 2B, 3B or SP, I don’t see how payroll exceeds $90M. Of those positions, I maybe see an OF and SP being brought in as a FA, with perhaps the OF being of the high end variety. Other than that, the market is shallow and rather unattractive for the positions the Cubs are likely to address.

    As it stands now, the Cubs have a roughly $50M per-arbitration payroll. I’ll be generous and assume $15M in arbitration. That would leave the Cubs about $25M to spend in FA in order to exceed $90M. Wonder if that happens.

    • Hookers or Cake

      The Cubs have a glut of LH outfielders and Sweeney looks like a better option than Dejesus at this point.
      I’d also like to think the Cubs are gearing up or leaving an opening for signing a decent OFer for 14 – be it Ellsbury, Choo, or even Beltran – Either way Dejesus was a bit redundant. A good guy who was decent. No pop – no speed – ok in CF – ok OBP

      • Bret Epic

        I love the idea of Ellsbury’s potential, though I don’t think he’s consistent enough in comparison to the contract he’s likely seeking. The good news is we’re better off overall throughout the bullpen and starting rotation. I would be thoroughly disappointed if they didn’t end up signing at least 1 impact player on the offensive side in the coming offseason, I’m just not sure who they should try to sign.

        • On The Farm

          Trading for Arrieta and Strop may end up being one of the biggest (if not thee biggest) trade this FO made. They got two arms with heavy upside. Strop doesn’t even need to be closer level and Arrieta doesn’t even need to stick in the rotation for the trade to be a big win. I am really looking forward to games 2 and 3 of this series to see if Rusin can keep it going, and if Arrieta can put together back-to-back consistent starts in the MLB (although hoping for him to repeat his STL start seems sky high).

          • Bret Epic

            I think Arrietta has more potential than Rusin overall, but he does seem to be improving. Control oriented south paw, sorta similar to Travis Wood. If Arrietta can continue to keep his control harnessed and keep his velocity, he could be dangerous in the rotation. I’m really hoping that we can find a way to acquire a #1 or 2 starter. I don’t believe Samardzija is a #1, but more likely a 2 or 3. I think the same is true for Edwin Jackson. Having a couple guys that are 2 or 3 starters, along with a few #4-5 isn’t bad, but I think if we found a way to get someone like David Price, it would be a drastic improvement overall. That includes possibly motivating the other starters as well. I see Rusin as a ceiling #4/5 and a floor as a Marshall/Russell type.

            • gocatsgo2003

              Getting someone like David Price would be an improvement to the pitching staff? Shocking revelation.

              • Bret Epic

                I didn’t just mean that the staff would be stronger, I also meant the potential performance of the rest of the staff in the rotation could get stronger due to his presence, which I did include at the end.

                • Drew7

                  So the mere presence of Price in the dugout makes Travis Wood want to win more?

          • Scotti

            “…and if Arrieta can put together back-to-back consistent starts in the MLB (although hoping for him to repeat his STL start seems sky high).”

            He already has. His last start was even better than the StL game (though against inferior competition (MIL 7/30):


            13 IP, 1 R/ER, 4 H, 1 HR, 5 BB, 9 K,

            • On the Farm

              I guess I should have clarified. Yes, he has had two good starts for us this season. But I meant consecutive starts in general (on a major league level) not start against Mil then head back to the minors. Did that make it more clear.

              i should also note that I think he can do it, I just want to see it for my confidence as much as his.

      • When the Music’s Over

        Not upset in anyway about the Cubs losing DeJesus (this 4th straight year of losing has just about wiped clean any emotion I have towards the major league ball club–it will return later). Just curious about the Cubs 2014 payroll given that the organization seems to now be focused on shedding as much MLB payroll as possible exiting the 2013 season.

        • On The Farm

          I am okay with it if it is players that will not be returning next year. Or if it is a situation where you aren’t sure if you want to pick up the option on a contract. Shedding Soriano’s contract should hopefully open up some space to get at least one key player (a la Jayson Werth?)

          • When the Music’s Over

            The confusing/intriguing part about shedding all this payroll is where it might be spent. Outside of a few huge names, there’s very little in the way of impact players worth paying for. This is why I’m so curious as to who the Cubs intend to spend their money on if they hope to hover around a respectable payroll for a so-called “major-market” franchise.

            C – Maybe someone decent, unless McCann is given big money, which I find highly unlikely.
            1B – Nope
            2B – Cano – Cannot see the Yankees letting him go.
            SS – Nope
            3B – Nope
            OF – Ellsbury, Choo, Beltran, Hart, Granderson – All have their warts one way or another, mostly age. I could see Hart on a prove-it health / flippable type 2 year contract. I’m guessing someone is brought in here.
            SP – There are a lot of decent options, though not really more than a few good ones with likely large salary demands (Garza, Lincecum, Josh Johnson, Ervin Santana, etc). I’m guessing a reclamation or two is brought in here.
            RP – Nothing significant
            BN – Nothing significant

            • Eternal Pessimist

              Maybe Abreu in the OF?

              • When the Music’s Over

                I don’t think that leviathan is fit to play OF. There’s speculation he should be a DH.

            • gocatsgo2003

              C — Why shell out big money for McCann when Castillo is showing significant improvement over the course of this year?
              2B — Cano will want something like $150MM (possibly approaching) $200MM and will be well into his 30s by the end of his contract. No thanks.
              OF — Similarly wouldn’t mind Hart; Ellsbury doesn’t excite me much, especially since he would make Almora redundant if he signs anything more than a two-year deal (I think)

              • When the Music’s Over

                I wouldn’t sign McCann, Cano or Ellsbury either. Just throwing shit at the wall because I’m curious where the Cubs intend to spend their money.

                If you haven’t figured it out yet, outside of trading for a big name with a big contract extension, I’m really struggling to find ways that the Cubs eclipse a $90M payroll next year (and that’s a pretty soft $90M considering Soriano’s taking up $15M or so of that amount).

                • Pat

                  Soriano 14 (not on roster)
                  Harrison .5 est per Cots (not on roster)
                  Jackson 13
                  Castro 5 (6 for salary estimation purposes due to signing bonus)
                  Rizzo 3 ( actual payments will reflect lower on official payroll)
                  Villanueva 5
                  Fukijawa 4

                  That’s 44.5 but only covers 4 to 5 spots on the 25 man (depending on Fukijawa).

                  Samardzjia, Wood and Russell Arb eligible maybe 12 total

                  So that is around 55, but only covers 7-8 spots on the 25 man. I just can’t see them going with 18 guys who are pre-arb on the roster, but in theory it could be as low as about 65 million.

                  • When the Music’s Over

                    7-8 isn’t right in terms of pre-arb/arb guys, especially if you tack on the few guys the Cubs do have under contract.

                    Watkins (or insert sub here)

                    Guys on Contract:

                    That’s 20 players there that are either pre-arb/arb or under contract and likely to take up a spot on this roster. Many of the players mentioned in this exercise can easily be replaced via Iowa or cheap FAs (especially the bullpen and bench), so feel free to play musical chairs.

                    The real question is what the Cubs intend to do with those final 4-5 spots. Cheap FA fill-ins? Big name FA signings? I’d guess maybe 1-2 of the latter, maybe, and the rest the former. Again, will be interesting to see how this roster is constructed this offseason. Especially since some of the big minor league bats are starting to get close, and the Cubs won’t want to block them with expensive long term FAs.

                    • When the Music’s Over

                      I should have noted who is arb eligible with an asterisk or something. That info can be found here. There’s quite a few guys — 10 to be exact, though I don’t anticipate Ransom or McDonald being retained.


                    • Pat

                      7-8 was for the contract guys, or guys you know they’re likely to keep/start. (F7, Wood, Russel). In my mind Barney is a maybe so I didn’t list him – I look at Arietta, Strop, etc, the same way. I don’t think they are guaranteed a spot, although it is likely.

                      The point was, and thank you for listing them all out, that there are only 2 people on that list (Jackson, Villenueva) that are post arb years. There’s no way, I hope, that they going into the season without some more veterans on the team.

            • willis

              They aren’t a major market team anymore. It’s hard to realize and accept, but that’s the direction. It’s a new time for us fans, we need to realize they aren’t spending money at this level like we’re used to and this rebuild is going to take a very long time.

              • turn two

                This comes across as crying in your cereal. The fact is its not time to spend money. We have to wait and see where to spend the money once we get a better idea of which prospects are actually legit. Then you fill gaps with free agent dollars.

      • cub2014

        I think they are looking at ellsbury on a 4 year
        deal. it gives them a leadoff hitter and a.300/
        .350 guy. which this team really needs.

        • On The Farm

          He is going to be expensive (even more so when you figure in the NTC part of his deal), but at this point I think he might be worth it, I would be willing to surrender a 2nd round pick (even with the overage advantage we would lose) if we can get ourselves a good defensive, solid-to above average hitting CF for 4 years. I think he will want 5, but who knows.

        • gocatsgo2003

          Wouldn’t be surprised if Ellsbury is looking for a much longer deal than that.

          • cub2014

            i think those deals that are more than 5 years are
            getting far and few between.

            • ssckelley

              You might be right but this free agent market is weak so someone will over spend for Ellsbury.

              But what you mentioned is probably what the Cubs will offer a guy like Ellsbury.

        • cms0101

          I don’t believe there is any chance the Cubs will sign Ellsbury, regardless of the deal length, if he is tendered by Boston. No way the give up the draft pick and dollars associated with the slot in first or second round, given where they will be picking. I think that’s a reality going forward regardless of the draft slot their in, unless a perfect scenario arises, like the best free agent available fits a need and has several prime years left. The alotted draft slot dollars will stop many teams from signing draft-pick compensation required free agents. It’s not just losing a player in the draft these days, the budgetary ramifications impact draftees throughout the class. Signing overslot guys becomes that much harder if your overall budget is less due to the lost pick.

          • gocatsgo2003

            It will be second round and I could see giving up those dollars because it’s one of Theo’s “guys.” But I’m still not excited about Ellsbury anyway.

            • cms0101

              I realize it will be a 2nd rounder. Still don’t see it happening. Theo telegraphed it as much in his comments about the international free agents. “A million here… a million there.” I don’t see a guy in the free agency list now, but I’m thinking an Edwin Jackson-type signing will be in the cards. A guy with major league success and no draft compensation issues. That’s basically all they targeted last season. Even when everyone wanted them to chase Bourn, it never really materialized.

              • ssckelley

                I can see the Cubs making a run at Mike Morse. A buy low player is what this FO has been known to go after when it comes to positional players. Even with DeJesus gone they still need a right handed bat to compliment Schierholtz and Sweeney/Bogusevic.

                • Noah

                  Cubs have tended to go with better defenders with that. More ways they can be valuable at the trade deadline.

                • gocatsgo2003

                  He of the .290 OBP and 25.2% K-rate? I like the idea of a “buy-low” corner outfielder, but a guy like Corey Hart looks better to me — .270/.334/.507 in 2012 (though the K-rate of about 27% is worrisome) and a career .276/.334/.491 guy, though he’s a pretty poor defensive player by most metrics. Maybe can get a bit of a discount on a Feldman-like deal.

                  • ssckelley

                    You might be able to come up with better names but it appears we agree on the approach the FO will be making this off season. Think more of Hart/Morse/Schierholtz type players and less Ellsbury/Choo type.

                    • gocatsgo2003

                      Agreed. Only deviation I could see is if being associated with draft pick compensation sufficiently decreases the value of a guy like Ellsbury or Choo such that Theo sees a market inefficiency and capitalizes on that. It would essentially be only in the case that the decrease in value is more valuable than a second round pick… which would take a lot.

                    • Eternal Pessimist

                      One year deals only on those types, with an ‘option to buy’ in 2015 seems to be the way Theo would go. 2015.

              • gocatsgo2003

                I pretty much agree with you, but I also almost always detect at least a little gamesmanship/negotiations in most of our Front Office’s comments. If Ellsbury’s price is altered by being associated with draft pick compensation to the point where Theo believes there is a sufficient market inefficiency, I think he would find the money to get it done.

        • cms0101

          And in any given year, there will be plenty of guys who were traded during the season that will not cost a draft pick to consider in free agency. Greinke last year, Garza this year, to name a few examples.

  • Ivy Walls

    This changes everything. Cubs now have a legitimate open spot in LF, Abreu anyone?

    • gocatsgo2003

      I would rather see them put Lake in LF and sign Ellsbury. And I’m not a particularly big fan of signing Ellsbury. Something about shelling out HUGE money for a guy who has never before hit Stateside doesn’t sit right with me.

      • Bret Epic

        If you’d rather pay top dollar, lose a draft pick and potentially block Soler and Almora when they’re ready to be brought up, it might be a decent idea. If you sign someone like Corey Hart to a “prove it” deal, you don’t worry about these things happening and you can try flipping him for prospects when his short term contract proves its worth. I’d rather allocate the funds we’d have by signing Hart to other problem areas than spend them on someone who’s had even more injury history and only 1 year with more than 10 home runs in his career. The guy does have a lot of tools, but spending that kind of money on someone with injury history like his wouldn’t be worth it. Whoever signs him is probably going to overpay by a ridiculous amount, and I hope it isn’t the Cubs.

        • gocatsgo2003

          That’s pretty much what I’m saying — I’m NOT a big fan of signing Ellsbury and even less of a fan of signing Abreu and sticking him in left field. Seems like choosing between the “bad” and “worse” options to me.

          • Bret Epic

            I hate to say this because his overall mechanics drive me crazy, but I’m curious what it would take to sign Pence. Healthy guy, good speed, good batting average. I think his plate discipline could use some work though, which is something Theo and company preach. If they worked on that with him, it could potentially lead to even better numbers overall (higher obp=more steals, runs, etc). That being said, it could also lead to disaster, which is what has debatably happened to Castro this year. Even still, a .285 career average, along with a .337 OBP and a 24 HR/92 RBI average per 162 games played might be worth looking into. His SB skills have improved quite a bit this year as well (18/1 in 19 attempts).

  • caryatid62

    If the Cubs front office felt (even wrongly) that it was important to get salary relief from the DeJesus contract when they have only $55 million contracted for next year, then this ownership group is nothing short of a financial disaster.

    • BT

      That’s probably it. The Cubs are probably operating on a $55 million dollar budget, and Theo signed on knowing full well that was the limitation. It’s the only logical conclusion.

      • Eternal Pessimist

        You may be right, but can’t really judge that until seeing their off-season pick-ups. Maybe a couple of big contracts to give us some hope. Again, I think salary relief is always a good think if you think you have better options, or can buy better options with the money saved.

      • caryatid62

        Theo signed almost two years ago. Times have changed and budgets are fluid. There’s a hell of a lot of evidence to indicate that this ownership group is having significant revenue problems.

        • willis

          Yes there is. Even tight lipped Theo said they don’t have money to throw around. Ricketts ownership is playing tight. Right or wrong, it’s a new ballgame on the north side and this is no longer a large market (payroll wise) team.

          • BT

            I’m going to bet you guys don’t know what you are talking about. I’m going to bet the Cubs continue to be a large market payroll team, and that you are making ridiculous assumptions based on payrolls from a team intent on rebuilding. I’m going to bet a team that saves 2.5 million and gets a prospect back on a guy they had no intention of signing to his option next year are being smart, not cheap or desperately small market. But you guys keep reading your tea leaves and chicken bones, and they will keep telling you what you are predisposed to believe.

            • nkniacc13

              I think they will be a big market team im just not sure that will be before the renovations are done

            • Caryatid62

              And I’m going to bet that you’d make excuses for he even if they had a $20 million payroll.

              There’s a hell of a lot of evidence that indicates they’re having financial trouble, and its not a criticism to point it out. If I’m wrong and they’re in the top 5 in spending in 2-3 years, then we’ll all seemingly be happy. But right now, almost every piece of evidence points to the opposite. If you want to finds a way to spin every piece of evidence into a story about some grand plan to have a $50 million payroll, go ahead. I think that’s ridiculous.

              • wilbur

                What evidence? Most of the ” numbers ” i’ve heard mentioned are anecdotal or dated from an early offer the Ricketts never finalized. The Ricketts have said publicaly that when it is time to spend on free agents or big international players the money will be available. How is that for evidence? All the moaning and handwringing about mid market low payroll is just stirring the pot for fan impatience with the really exciting and thorough overhaul of a team that was about as trashed top to bottom by the tribune minions as possible. Why would you spend big dollars on long term contracts for freeagents before your team is ready to win? Why would you want to have these “star” players signed now to play in a stadium that will be a construction sidet for the next couple of years with seating capacity reduced by 30 percent or so.

                Not only is what you are stating without evidence, but it wouldn’t make any sense to do anyway. It’s like saying that guy over there must be really broke because he isn’t throwing his money away. When really he is just waiting for the right time to spend, while checking item after item off the long to do list to turn this trainwreck of a tribune operation around. I don’t see any other way they could do it.

                Of course there is the Wittenmeyer plan for the cubs which includes partial information, outdated sources, sour grapes from fired former insiders, and other innuendo based reporting. Plus he just keeps repeating the same old stuff over and over, I guess that is one way to avoid copying someone elses work, just keep recopying your own. Amazing how long he has gotten away with it but how often does anyone read the suntimes?

  • #1lahairfan

    Don’t like this move at all unless we at least get a top 15 prospect back because 1) he was a good influence for the kids 2) he was a poster child for the approach the new FO values (takes pitches / high obp) 3) nice affordable option for next year 4)there’s nobody he’s holding back in the minors yet 5) kind of grown on us fans( fan favorite) 6) who’s the veteran leader now?

    • Norm

      1) How so? What did DeJesus do that has made Castro or Rizzo better players?
      2) who is only going to be around for about 4-5 more weeks.
      3) $6.5M is not a good price for him, so his option was not going to be picked up
      4) Schierholtz, Lake, Sweeny, Vitters, Szczur, Sappelt, Bogusevic, Brett Jackson (ha)
      5) so?
      6) who is only going to be around for about 4-5 more weeks.

      • Brian Myers

        Exactly. They may have just saved 1.5 million and received a prospect for a:

        1. Soon to be 34 years old.
        2. Hasn’t hit above.262 in 3 years,
        3. That he has only had double digit hr’s 3 times in his career, with a career high of 13.
        4. A “leadoff” hitter that has only had double digital SB’s twice, and that last time was in 2008.
        5. His WAR was 1.9 = the 19th best in CF in baseball.

        I know, he’s a real Cub. Plays hard, hustles, good guy. He could bunt (which is something the Cubs have struggled with over the past few years) and didn’t strike out too much. We like those kinds of guys.

        But if they had an entire team of DeJesus’s the Cubs would have a team salary of 162 million and each position would be below average as the 19th best in baseball. To get (save) 1.5 million and a player for him is a deal when the have guys in the minors that can put up similar numbers.

        • cub2014

          Dejesus wasnt coming back anyway. They need
          a righthanded power hitting outfielder and a true
          centerfielder anyway. Might as well get something
          for him for 5-6 weeks of time.

        • Eric

          Nailed it. I like DeJesus as much as the next guy, but I’d rather see someone like Sappelt or Ha get some MLB at-bats.

  • Josh

    Brett, what is the time limit othe PTBNL deals? When do they have to be completed….a couple of the early season ones, ie. Carpenter and Gonzalez, are still hanging out there. Or do you think that they were/will be resolved with cash and no players will actually change hands.

    • Brett

      Just depends – they have to be resolved within 6 months, so most end when the minor league season ends. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those minor ones were already resolved for cash, and we just aren’t really going to hear about it.

      • Josh

        K….that’s what I was thinking…..what kind of realistic prospects are we gonna get for the likes of Gonzalez, Lillibridge, Takahashi, carpenter…….

        • MichiganGoat

          I think cash would be a better value

  • #1lahairfan

    Really, really hope we’re not doing this move to “save money” . I hope they throw in as much cash as possible to get a better prospect.

  • David

    Are there any rules of flipping Abreu??? Even if we could not or doesnt make sense, I vote for going after him to put more pressure on Rizzo.

    • terencemann

      If you bid more than any other team was willing to bid on a player, then they’re probably not going to also give you prospects in order to acquire the player.

  • matt

    Lake CF

    Barney 2B

    Navarro C

    Schierholtz RF

    Castro SS

    Murphy 3B

    McDonald LF

    Ransom 1B

    Samardzija P

    I’ve seen better offensive linueps in my wednesday night softball beer league.

    Go get ’em Shark…just don’t give up any runs!!!

    • Jon

      Yikes! That’s awful!

      • terencemann

        That lineup starts in a lake and ends with a shark. There must be some obvious joke here.

        • On The Farm

          Its better than Starting with Barney and ending with Wood

          • Jason P

            Or starting with Mcdonald(s) and ending with (a) Ransom. Maybe that one was a bit of a stretch.

    • Jason P

      Good God. Remember how the big story last year was how the trade deadline was a rotation killer? Well this year, it was a lineup-killer.

      I think there are maybe 3-4 guys in that entire lineup that you could say would destroy AAA pitching if sent down to the minors. Navarro would, Schierholtz would, and possibly Castro would. Before his call-up, Lake was having a good year in AAA, but he wasn’t tearing it up

    • On The Farm

      If I counted correctly only two guys who were on the opening day lineup are starting today (positionally). Yikes.

    • Patrick W.

      This could be it. This could be THE DAY. Jordan Zimmerman had 4 starts this season where he has given up 2 hits or less…

    • ssckelley

      Why is Ransom starting in place of Rizzo?

      • Mr. B. Patient

        I heard on the Score that Rizzo is sick. (who wouldn’t be on this team?).

  • Aaron

    The Cubs are not shy about finishing the season in a better draft position than they were just a month ago. More than likely, they will be picking at #5 throughout next year’s draft. I understand the strategy and it’s probably a good one. So yes it’s about saving money…and securing better drafts picks for next season.

    • terencemann

      And getting a larger pool of draft money.

    • On The Farm

      I wouldn’t give up on that #4 pick so quickly.

      • Mr. B. Patient

        Hell, #3 is not impossible, with a small chance at#2.

        All Cubs broadcast for the rest of this season should have some type of health disclaimer.

        • On The Farm

          #3 will be tough and will need the Sox to go on a mini run (like win a series or something). As far as the broadcasters go that’s who I truly feel sorry for. I can always watch something else when the game gets ugly.

          • gocatsgo2003

            The Sox have won three in a row which, sadly, probably counts as a run for them. Either way, with the current composition of the offense on the North Side, it could very well be an accelerating race to the bottom!

          • Hee Seop Chode

            I’m sure their millions help them sleep at night. I can think of a lot of people who have a more demanding job. Or no job.

          • Mr. B. Patient

            I don’t know the Sox strength os schedule, but they have 7 guys in their everyday lineup who are better than our top guy.
            They also are getting better pitching.
            We are 4-16 our last 20. Don’t underestimate our ‘suck-a-tude’.

          • Good Captain

            If they performed for fun, I’d be w/ you.

  • http://bleachenation Sacko

    McDonald? Bring somebody up please, anybody. My god this is getting worse everyday. I told you folks 2 months ago the whole outfield was going. We better get something better then what we got for Harriston, where did that comparison come from.? Won’t surprise me if we pick up what the Nats dropped for DJ., maybe he’s better then McDonald, what a joke. How do we keep watching? Schierholtz your next.!

  • cub2014

    I think the Cubs will bring in Pence or Abreau,
    Ellsbury,a starter (like feldman), a reliever and
    I hope they go after someone like Price!

    • gocatsgo2003

      Good luck with that.

  • ssckelley

    The reactions and the amount of attention to DeJesus being dumped is surprising. The Cubs have a surplus of left handed outfielders, Bogusevic was coming off the DL and soon so will Sweeney. It was debatable if the Cubs were even bringing him back for next season and this move saves 2.5 million. If they got anything in return that resembles a prospect then it is a bonus.

    • bbmoney

      Remember all the anger hen they signed schieholtz last offseason and what a waste it was?

  • Jason P

    Good thing Zimmerman’s a righty. Otherwise the lineup might look something like
    1 Lake
    2 Barney
    3 Castillo
    4 Gillespie
    5 Murphy
    6 Castro
    7 Mcdonald
    8 Watkins/Ransom
    9 Shark

  • Corey

    This is really an odd trade. Makes me wonder about what theo has up his sleeve.

    • Mr. B. Patient

      Theo has no clue what he is doing. This one may have just been doing DeJesus a favor.

      • gridge

        The FO is saying we wont be in on abreu, but this is to lower cost and talk about him, the plan is to get this kid.

  • Pingback: Pre-Gamin’: Nationals v. Cubs (7:05 CT) – Lineups, Broadcast Info, etc. | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Curt

    That’s stinks when a big market team acts like a small market team I know it’s their money but in baseball terms they didn’t save much and if their not getting much in return either what’s the point and how does this help the rebuild , do Sweeney or bogesevic really project as starters or just more flippable assets.

    • gocatsgo2003

      Sweeney has at least performed like a starter this year. Bogusevic… not so much, but he could very well be useful as a platoon/bench piece.

      • ssckelley

        Keep in mind Bogusevic is still only 29 years old and just completing his 5th season as a positional player at the professional level, he was drafted as a pitcher. Before he got hurt he had put up some impressive numbers at Iowa. Not saying he will turn into anything but the Cubs might as well give him a shot for the last month. I look at the minors and there is not much there, perhaps the Cubs give Szczur or Ha a call up after the rosters expand.

        • cub2014

          No to Bogusevic is a career .220 hitter. Sweeney
          is your guy he has a career avg of .285 .340 OP
          and a solid centerfielder. Sounds like Dejesus a
          few years back.

          • Jason Powers

            If we are relying on Bogie/Sweeney/Schierholtz as a 2014 OF, I think we are tragically overplaying the “fringe OF at 29/30 card”. Plus you got no offensive production from Castro/Barney in 2013 – and that has to change if we even want to look competitive in 2014. Maybe, we don’t.

            I don’t necessarily expect them to spend oodles of cash, given the recent statements on small investments (a million here or there), but if we clock in with a 70M payroll in 2014, as low as these teams in 2013:
            Minnesota $75,562,500
            Colorado $75,449,071
            San Diego $71,689,900
            Oakland $68,577,000
            Pittsburgh $66,289,524

            then this recent stretch 2011-2014 stretch has been all about Ricketts’s financial footing to invest in the stadium in 2014/2015. The cash saved supports all of this. Those millions tend to add up…at least 100M plus so far over than stretch. (And shrinking attendance to go along with it….the goal is cut costs quicker than revenues decrease…)

            Just my opinion.

            • Bret Epic

              This claims to be the current payroll (prior to DeJesus transaction).

            • ssckelley

              I agree but the free agent market looks week, so either the FO overpays for 30/31 year olds or they take chances on low cost options like they did with Schierholtz. Going by past tendencies the FO seems willing to spend on pitchers but go “moneyball” on positional players. Honestly I do not see them over spending on players like Ellsbury or Choo, especially considering what the Cubs have coming up through the minors.

              • cub2014

                Cubs have to sign a cleanup hitting right-
                handed hitting OFer like: Pence or Hart.

                • Jason Powers

                  Maybe I am of the opinion that Ellsbury isn’t a decrepit rundown useless CF that gets hurt everyday. Not saying to sign him to 80 year deal for 5000 million, but a reasonable 4 year deal plus a team opt, ain’t gonna kill this franchise’s hopes or balance sheet. Theo drafted the SOB, and most GM/VPs like the guys they invested time and money to garner success who won them a World Series. You’d also think he’d have some rapport with Ellsbury.

                  Oh, and has any FA we’ve signed recently even had a WS ring? DeJesus, Jackson, Sweeney, et. al.

                  Spending on pitching, sure, if it cost effective. I’d do reclamations on some FA pitchers, for the right amount.

                  I think the primary problem is offense: 28th in OBP, real close to Miami and Houston. For a FO that preaches sabermetrics, that number stinks. You can’t score if you don’t get on base…that is even basic logic.

                  Honestly, they probably won’t spend.

                  Not because of the minors, because HOW DO YOU know all those guys will succeed? We have Baez in AA, all the others top guys are in A ball (Bryant, Almora). Jorge Soler has 300ABs. Dale Sveum seemed of the notion we give them 2000 ABs. So, you think that works on a time horizon for 2015?

                  We could get 3 years from Ellsbury before we even see Almora or Soler consistently. Boom, 4th year Ellsbury is in his prove it or opt out year. And that might be the year we are most likely to compete…2017. And for the veteran presence guy, Ells, is a vet…one that has been part and parcel to the success of Boston. He leads off for the best offense in baseball, and he’s gonna be 30 in September, leads the AL in SB, and is in/near top 30 in OBP.

                  That too counts for something.

                  But It’s all a matter of price. (4/65 or 5/80 as a tm opt/ buyout in the 3M range.)

                  We won’t do it because we want to save all our nuts for a rainy day in 2016 when the sun shines brilliantly on the new look young Cubs that will all blossom at once. A long way off.

  • Die hard

    All that matters is Sandberg got his first win of a HOF career as mgr too

  • Ed

    Thank god Cole Gillespie is still on the roster… Smh

  • Kevin

    Are the Cubs so strapped for money because of the crazy Zell purchase agreement?

  • Johnny B Good

    It’s hard judge without know the return. But if its just salary dump, all I have to say is WTF Theo/Jed! I’ll be really pissed off if that’s was what it was. $2.5 mil!? Really? Ricketts blows his nose and with $100 dollar bills! That is chump change.

    But until I see what the return is I won’t critize it though…but just letting my thoughts be known.

    • PcB

      Thank God. I wouldn’t have been able to sleep tonight if you hadn’t weighed in on this.

  • jkppkj

    All this talk about the horror of the Cubs not spending more than $60-70 million on the payroll next season confuses me. Even if they had gone out and signed a few big money players would they be ready to have to core to complement them? I don’t think adding a David Price, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann and Robinson Cano would necessarily make this a playoff team unless you also got huge progression steps forward from a bunch of guys like Lake, Rizzo, Castro, Samardzija, Arrietta, Wood, Strop and someone produced at 3B. Spending a ton of money would ensure the Cubs could be the Bluejays or last years Marlins, unless there’s someone that really fits into a plan for the next 3+ years it doesn’t make any sense to me to raise payroll for the sake of raising payroll. Just because the FO chooses to save money on DDJ and free up some opportunity for ABs doesn’t mean that there is an imperative to decrease payroll that they’re following.

    • Pat

      “would they be ready to have the core to compliment them”.

      This is the crux of the issue. No, they don’t right now (unless you add all of the players listed above, in which case, yes, that is a playoff contender).

      But the “core” is never going to be there if they don’t add to it. Right now the core is Jackson, Smardzjia, Wood, Castro and Rizzo. Smardzjia you have for two more years right now (and really one because if he doesn’t extend he will probably be traded at the end of the year). Jackson and Wood you have for three more years (and again, if not extended, probably really two since they would be traded before being allowed to walk in free agency).

  • Hawkeye

    What it shows me is that winning may take a backseat to the profit margin with this ownership.

    • JOE

      Most ownerships will tell you that winning = higher profit margins… I don’t think these types of moves are done so that the FO and ownership can sit back and rake in the bucks while we, as fans, suffer. They are businessmen, and they understand their own strategy far better than we do. Previous organizational management should remind you that spend big doesn’t always mean win big, and almost never results in long-term, sustainable organizational success. Yes, it sucks to have to watch lineups like this being put on the field, but it is a means to an end, and, unfortunately, it’s what we will have to endure for a while.

  • cub2014

    hawkeye I am pretty sure you are wrong.
    season is over and everyone they have gotten
    rid of was going to be gone anyway.

    • http://Jplgxk AlwaysNextYear

      Wouldn’t be the first time and certainly not the last.

      • Hawkeye

        Time will tell but personally I think some of these pieces could have helped next year as we did have a team option. @ alwaysnextyear shouldn’t you get back to making homophobic slurs and telling us how tough you are.

  • nkniacc13

    Could the reason this is a ptbn because they would have to clear waivers and so they want to wait till they don’t have to?

  • nkniacc13

    I thought that they said they weren’t going to make a trade just to make a trade