Quantcast

david dejesus cubsTrading in August is both complicated and difficult. Because of the requirement of securing trade waivers before a player on the 40-man roster can be dealt in August, we usually see little activity in the month (except for the occasional biggest trade ever). We can now say we also see some serious gaming.

Last week, the Chicago Cubs dealt David DeJesus to the Washington Nationals after they’d claimed him on waivers. That deal netted the Cubs a PTBNL or cash (believed to be a nominal amount of cash), but mostly it saved them the $2.5 million DeJesus was still owed. It was sad to see DeJesus go, but the consensus was: why not save a little money in a lost season, and then try and bring him back later? A side consensus was: why are the Nationals adding an outfielder right now?

Immediately upon acquiring DeJesus, the Nationals placed him back on waivers. Had they made a mistake? Was it just the usual August maneuvering?

Nope and nope, as it turned out. The Nationals managed to trade DeJesus to the Tampa Bay Rays, revealing their clever plan all along (despite all the BS from various Nationals’ personnel about how happy they were to get DeJesus). This was market exploitation at its finest, and the Nationals deserve some credit. By claiming DeJesus in the first place, the non-competitive Nationals took a $2.5 million risk that they’d be able to not only pass that contract on to someone else, but that they’d also be able to get a prospect in the process. The risk paid off, we think, in that the Nationals will get a PTBNL for DeJesus, and the Rays will be taking on his contract. Presumably, the PTBNL the Nats are getting exceeds the value of the PTBNL/cash they gave up to get DeJesus. (From GM Mike Rizzo’s comments, it sounds like the PTBNL is a quality 22-year-old pitching prospect.)

The Nationals accomplished this feat because of the nature of August trade waivers. You can read up on it in depth in the first link above, but the gist is that the Cubs had to offer DeJesus (and his contract) to every team in baseball if the Cubs wanted the option of trading him. The Nationals, with a sub-.500 record in the NL, had one of the first cracks at saying, “yeah, we’d take him,” and they took advantage of that opportunity, knowing that other teams that actually wanted to use DeJesus this year wouldn’t have a shot to get him unless they first went through the Nationals. It was a bummer for the Cubs, but that’s how it works in August.

That the Nationals managed to game the system says nothing about whether or not the Cubs screwed up. On review, it’s really hard to say they did.

The only question for the Cubs in this process was whether it was worth dealing DeJesus to the Nationals for full salary relief and a (maybe) PTBNL or (probably) a little bit of cash. Whether other teams further up the waiver chain might have interest in a DeJesus trade was of absolutely no moment to the Cubs. They could do nothing about it, and it wasn’t worth considering at that time. Their options were to trade DeJesus to the Nationals, or to pull him back and keep him for the duration. At that point, only the Nationals were in a position to concern themselves with making a trade with those other teams.

I suppose you could blame the Cubs if they had better offers on the table on July 31, refused to pull the trigger, and then had to settle for merely pawning off the contract a few weeks later. We’ll likely never know how that all shook out, and should keep in mind that DeJesus was coming off a shoulder injury at that time, and trade activity around baseball was extremely weak.

(Alternatively, you’d hope that, of the reportedly many AL teams interested in DeJesus, none were interested in DeJesus mostly for 2014. If some were, then the Cubs could have pulled DeJesus back when the Nationals claimed him, and then could have traded him for better value in the offseason (costing them only $1 million in salary for the rest of the year).

The three problems there are that (1) I really doubt teams wanted DeJesus only for 2014, given that the claiming team after the Nats was the Rays – a team very much in contention this year; (2) that $1 million in savings isn’t nothing; and (3) if a team was wanting to trade for DeJesus for 2014 (and his $6.5 million option), then the Cubs wouldn’t have a chance to pick him back up in the offseason.

(Then again, if a team was willing to pay DeJesus $6.5 million next year, I’m thinking he wouldn’t have been coming back to the Cubs anyway.))

In the end, you can be angry about how things played out – the Nats got more for DeJesus than the Cubs did. But you can’t really be mad at the Cubs, because there was nothing they could do about it. And you can’t really be mad at the Nationals, because they just took advantage of the system. We’d all be celebrating the Cubs’ front office if they did the same thing.

We can be a little mad about the waiver system in August, but the circumstances here were so unique that I don’t think we’re going to see this kind of thing happen all that often. You’d have to have a player valuable enough that many teams want him – and teams know that other teams want that player – but on a contract that his waiving team is willing to let him go for nothing if another team is willing to take on the contract. That’s going to be exceedingly rare in this day and age, which is probably why we haven’t seen this situation pop up.

  • DarthHater

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find self-serving manipulation of overly-complicated rules emerging from our nation’s capital!

    • http://www.frenchrocks.net Ian Afterbirth

      Your winnings, sir.

  • caryatid62

    I hate it when these big market teams like the Nationals exploit the small market teams like the Cubs who are just trying to save as much money as they can on their shoestring budget.

    • Jamie

      Huh? Cubs are a small market team?

      • DarthHater

        Sarcasm, man. Sarcasm.

        • TWC

          Sar-chasm.

  • Paul

    Who cares looks like 2016 maybe 2015

  • TWC

    “But you can’t really be mad at the Cubs, because there was nothing they could do about it.”

    I’m sure many of the 100+ comments sure to follow will disagree (or, alternately, have not even read that far in the post and just use it as a springboard to talk about how much the Cubs’ FO sucks, Sveum sucks, worst team ever, blah blah blah…).

    • Mr. B. Patient

      I don’t understand your post. Does it mean people can’t comment on this site if they don’t worship at the “Theo/Jed Genius Altar”?

      • TWC

        My point, your defensiveness notwithstanding, is that I’m amused that Ace would suggest that people “can’t really be mad at the Cubs” over this situation. There’s not a single thing that could happen with the Cubs that won’t piss *someone* off, and those *someones* are usually the most vocal. Have you never read the comments here? Or any other Cubs’ site’s comments?

        And fer frack’s sake, man, the whole “I’m being treated unfairly/my opinions are being marginalized because I don’t think Theo is da bomb” shit is just plaaaaaaayed out. There are many, many people who object to the Cubs’ current FO’s actions; many, many people who support them; and many, many more people in the middle. It’s a spectrum, not a damn coin flip. Find a new thing on which to hang your victimhood hat.

        • Kyle

          It works both ways. I have yet to see anything happen to the Cubs in the last two years that wasn’t obviously all part of the plan and proof of our front office’s genius.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            The international free agent plan of this year aside – we just agree to disagree on whether it was a happy accident or a plan with “outs” built in – are there many things that have happened that are not obviously part of the plan?

            I get grief for being a front office booster in the extreme, but I’m still waiting for them to do something profoundly unimpressive, given the resources currently available. Signing Concepcion? Looks like it may have been a mistake, but we don’t know that moves impact on other moves, and it isn’t clearly a bust just yet. And even that was a small money mistake.

          • TWC

            Oh, absolutely. I suppose I could have made that clearer in the second part of my reply. My frustration remains with those for whom it’s an either/or all or nothing situation.

          • DarthHater

            I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find that there are always people at both ends of the opinion spectrum on this board! Brett, you need to do something about this immediately!

        • Mr. B. Patient

          What was I defensive about? I made no comment about how the FO handled this. It just seems you don’t think people have a right to question the genius of the FO.
          it’s fine if people thinkthey’re great, I just prefer to wait and see how it works out. That’s all. At this point, I’m just not convinced they have done anything all that special.
          When the Cubs compete for a WS year after year, I’ll be impressed, until then, i’ll remain skeptical.

          • TWC

            “It just seems you don’t think people have a right to question the genius of the FO.”

            Well, that’s either total nonsense or specious bullshit. I’m not sure which. It could be both. But before you lump me into the “Theo is a genius!!!11lol1!” crowd, I’ll let you re-read the parts of my comments in which I decried the absolutist views of the Cubs’ FO.

            Because comprehension.

  • Paul

    roof top owners do all the money they will lose sorry about that.

  • cms0101

    Good for the Nationals. They played a great game of cat and mouse and won out. It makes me ask the question, why couldn’t the Cubs have done this too? They are also in the catbird seat, as far as waiver claims go. They could have claimed any number of guys that went on waivers and attempted to manuever a prospect or two out of teams farther down the line. I suppose there is always a risk that they would take on too much money in return, but they have received a considerable amount of salary relief with the trades made this season, so in theory they had budget room to spare. Who knows. Maybe they did, only to find that teams pulled back everyone. The Nats, to their credit, exploited the rules and got themselves a minor prospect. Well done Mike Rizzo.

    • ssckelley

      The waiver system is a little easier to exploit when you are a borderline contending team. I am just shocked that the Pirates let DeJesus pass. Honestly I think the Nationals were sweating it out when DeJesus got passed around to the AL teams because any of the other AL borderline teams could have done the same thing and laid a claim on DeJesus.

  • J.L.

    “We can be a little mad about the waiver system in August, but the circumstances here were so unique that I don’t think we’re going to see this kind of thing happen all that often.”

    I’m sure you’re right. But, the way I see it, there’s a very simple way MLB could avoid this kind of gambit from happening in the future: forbidding teams to put a player back on waivers after trading for him in August. Wouldn’t that be a healthy tweak to the system?

    • cms0101

      Why should they try to avoid this gambit? I think it was brilliant. Plus, the Nationals took a chance that they’d be stuck with the contract, so it’s not a flaw in the system. There’s no reason to make any changes. The Cubs just have to say well done and take the $50k. That’s most likely what they will acquire in this transaction.

  • Steve

    Been a Cubs fan for 61-years. Only 17 winning seasons!!!! All true blue fans had better get ready for many more years of losing seasons before this franchise is at least competitive with the Cards, Reds and Pirates.

  • Dustin S

    We’ve seen many times that Theo and Jed aren’t afraid to use brinksmanship to try to get maximum value back (Dempster/Garza/etc.). More often than not they’ve won those gambles. But I can’t help but feel that the DeJesus situation was an example of where it backfired. Whatever offers were on the table July 31 for him had to be more than the what appears to be token value they’ll get back from Washington. DeJesus wouldn’t have brought a huge haul anyway so it’s not something to dwell too much on. But I can see where it stirred up some WTH thoughts.

    To summarize, trading him at the deadline for value similar to what Washington got would have made sense, or keeping him for 2014 would have made sense. But dealing him when they did for basically a little salary savings looks like they goofed and just pushed their luck a little too far this time.

    • willis

      It was all about money. Nothing more. And good for the Nationals. They played the system and the Cubs, turned DeJesus into a decent prospect. I’m impressed with Rizzo and Company on that one.

      I do agree, if they were just hell or high water on trading DeJesus, wish they would have pulled the trigger on anything more than this. They didn’t and Washington made a great move.

  • Hawkeye

    Brett,
    Any chance that the Ray’s wanted DeJesus, but also knew that he wouldn’t make it to their turn in the order on the AL side, so they reached out to a NL team earlier in the lineup and let them (Washington) know what they would be willing to give up? I guess what I am getting at, is it possible that the Nationals were just a pawn in the Rays scheme, as opposed to the Nationals being the mastermind of the plan?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Nope – DeJesus had to go back on waivers for the Nats to deal him. The other teams you reference could have jumped the Rays again.

      • DarthHater

        Fine. You say in two lines what it took me nine lines to say below. No wonder your comment got in two minutes earlier. :-P

    • willis

      I’d see it as possible but that the cubs were the pawn. I think the Rays wanted an outfield asset, realized the cubs were looking to shred as much money as possible, and negotiated something with the Nationals to make a play for DeJesus.

      • willis

        I shouldn’t have mentioned teams, any two teams could in theory, lay that plan out, but it takes someone willing to give up a player and it takes hoping the same waiver player could get as far as they needed. I think it’s completely possible that those conversations are had between teams, but it takes some things falling into place to make it happen.

    • DarthHater

      If there are no teams between Washington and Tampa that would claim DDJ, then there would be no reason for Tampa to have to make that kind of deal with Washington. they could just wait for their turn, claim him themselves, and then make a deal with the Cubs.

      Conversely, if there are teams between Washington and Tampa that would claim DDJ, then those same teams would still be in a position to claim DDJ when Washington waived him, thereby preventing Washington from trading DDJ to Tampa.

      Either way, I’m not sure the proposed strategy really would make sense for Tampa.

  • Kyle

    DeJesus was supposed to be one of the crown jewels of the “flippables.” Ended up getting nothing for him.

    • DarthHater

      Yea, I thought the whole point was to make a moderate but limited investment of dollars in players like DDJ, in order to later convert that investment into younger, cost-controlled talent. Now we apparently are supposed to believe that the Cubs don’t even have the dollars for that strategy?

      • willis

        I think this is where, as much praise as anyone wants to give the Nationals, they are frustrated with the move. DeJesus wasn’t a make or break player nor a key to the rebuild, but just to give him away and get nothing in return player wise is rubbing folks the wrong way.

        More concerning is the money issue though, seeing that giving up on DeJesus for a couple million and no one in return was that attractive to the FO.

        • DarthHater

          Yep.

        • mjhurdle

          I thought Brett outlined it nicely.
          The Cubs had a choice:
          - Pull DeJesus off waivers, pay his salary for the rest of the year and the buyout for next.
          - Let the Nationals claim him and pay the salary and buy out.

          Not sure why saving 2.5 million for a .250 hitting OF is such a “concerning” development.
          I would personally be more concerned if the FO decided to eat 2.5 million just so that DeJesus could provide 1 extra win the rest of the year.

          • Kyle

            He needed to be traded before the deadline. He was healthy and playing by the deadline, although by a scant margin. If the Cubs had been able to pick up salary, he’d have had value in prospects. The fact that they couldn’t makes it concerning.

            • Edwin

              Maybe there just weren’t enough offers that the Cubs felt good about. It takes two to tango, after all.

              • Kyle

                If the Cubs had been able to pick up salary, the offers would have been there. DeJesus is still a useful player.

                • Edwin

                  Maybe. I’m not saying Dejues didn’t have value, or wasn’t a useful player. But maybe the offers the Cubs were getting were not what they were looking for. Just because the Cubs are willing to pick up salary doesn’t mean a team would want them to. It’s not like the Cubs are eating $10-$20M with DeJesus. And even if the team was willing to part with a prospect to save money on the deal, maybe the prospects they were willing to give up didn’t match with what the Cubs wanted.

                  • Kyle

                    You can “and maybe” your way to make almost anything seem legitimate.

                    But the Cubs just accepted cash savings for a useful player instead of a prospect. That’s an unsettling reversal of previous trends.

                    • Edwin

                      And maybe I will.

                    • cub2014

                      I read cash and a PTBNL so which
                      is it?

                    • JayPaul

                      Could it be possible, this trade cancels out the PTBNL the Cubs owe in the Hairston trade. Ultimately making the deal, DeJesus and Hairston for Pineyro and another similar prospect, plus the cash savings. While the DeJesus deal doesn’t look great on paper, i could see the Cubs coming out marginally better than would appear. For the most part this usually seems to be the case with this front office.

                    • frank

                      Very true; hopefully, it’s just an isolated incident rather than the beginning of a trend itself. Although I don’t like how this worked out, I’d be more concerned if this type of thing became a trend.

                  • mjhurdle

                    I just dont see the value in making up assumed values for players and then getting upset the Front Office didn’t get those assumed values.
                    If that value is proven, and a report comes out that the FO rejected a trade with team X for 2 AA prospects because they didn’t want to take on DeJesus’s salary, then i will join with everyone expressing concern on the monetary side of business.
                    Until then, there are more than enough other things about this team to concern myself with than made up trades that didn’t happen

              • Mick

                I mentioned this a few months ago–and got yelled out–there are 19 and counting clubs who refuse to deal with Theo. My good lawyer friend is an absolute good friend with a West coast G.M. and I have no reason to dis-believe this. This very influential G.M. and others will not even accept a call—sports media should check their sources but they will not–free ride for Theo. Dis-believe at will but inside baseball.

                • bbmoney

                  Simply put. I don’t believe you, your “friend”, or your “friend’s friend”.

                  • mick

                    That is o.k. I believe my friend. Hint: Think of a West Coast G.M. that might have reason never to trust Cubs. But you have to know the game a bit.

                    • bbmoney

                      Hint…i think you’re full of crap.

                • Kyle

                  OK. So all I have to do is find 12 teams that the Cubs have made a deal with since Epstein was hired to prove you wrong?

                  • jh03

                    Rangers, Reds, Rockies, Yankees, Orioles, Marlins, Braves, Nationals, Red Sox, A’s, Giants, Padres.

                    There’s 12.. And I could probably keep going. And that’s just off the top of my head.

                  • frank

                    That sounds about right . . .

                  • Edwin

                    Dodgers, Rangers, Nationals, Braves, Yankees, Orioles, Padres, Diamonbacks, Astros, Rockies, Tigers, Red Sox, Marlins.

                  • MichaelD

                    Looks like the Cubs have made deals with 16 different teams since Theo took over:

                    http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/trade-partners.cgi?franch_ID_1=CHC&franch_ID_2=ALL

            • mjhurdle

              I would argue that just getting someone to pay you 2.5 million for a player as lackluster as DeJesus is getting more than market value.

              DeJesus is not a good player. He is a average-below average player, and has been for 3 years. I think the assumption that, if the Cubs eat some salary, teams would be lining up to throw prospects at the Cubs for a weak-hitting, average defense, just coming off injury OF is a bit of a stretch.

              But if it comes out that the Angels were offering Trout for DeJesus, and the Cubs didn’t take it because the Angels wanted us to eat DeJesus’s salary, then i will be concerned.

              But i find it hard to get worked up over the Cubs saving 2.5 million on essentially an average 4th OF.

              • Kyle

                Average, even below average, players have value. I would argue that your argument is silly.

                • mjhurdle

                  he did have value.

                  2.5 million of value i would say.

                  well done front office.

                  • Edwin

                    His production was worth more than $2.5M though. If you value the $/WAR at $5.5 (conservative), and DeJesus is a 1.5-2.5 WAR player, DeJesus is worth $8.25-$13.75M per season. The Cubs could have paid him only $6.5M next year. That’s a nice deal for the Cubs.

                  • Kyle

                    I would say that your evaluation of his value is a bit unfortunate.

                    • mjhurdle

                      Well, i have 2 MLB teams that corroborate my estimate of his value being around 2.5 million.

                    • Kyle

                      Presumably, Tampa thinks he is worth *at least* that much. Possibly more.

                    • mjhurdle

                      So i win 2-1? :)
                      also, couldn’t we swing this to mean every team in the NL and every team in front of TB in the AL thought that he was not worth the 2.5 million?
                      meh, thats a stretch. ill stick to 2-1

                    • Kyle

                      His value is set by the one. It only takes one buyer.

      • Kyle

        Last year, it was frequently mentioned that the Cubs were using their finances to be able to pick up salary in deals in order to get a better return in prospects.

        This year, we’ve shed salary in essentially every deal.

    • Mick

      Got that right Kyle. Certainly would like the so transparent F.O. to offer explanation.

  • The Dude Abides

    Cubs are all about the Benjamin’s at this point, PTBNL would be nice but not as much as cash in hand. I’m sure they have better places to spend that money than the product on the field.

    As far as DeJesus coming back next season after finishing this season in a playoff race I guess we’ll see how interested he is in the Cubs 2014 rebuild plans. He just might find it refreshing to be playing for something other than a top ten draft pick. I think we can safely give the number 9 jersey to someone else.

  • cubmig

    Does anyone think the FO will provide their side of why things went down as they did concerning DeJesus? Sure would like to hear something from the “horse’s mouth”. Or could it be they don’t consider what the Nats did a big deal?

  • Awalker

    Rizzo taught me and some friends all about the the waiver system one night in a D.C. cigar bar shortly after he was hired as the Nat’s AGM.

    He knew his stuff then and he knows his stuff now. Very sharp man.

  • wilbur

    I don’t see this as a particularly shrewd or even a fair move by the Rizzo and the Nationals. And for the same reasons as those for why you don’t see this happen very often.

    First) it is a pikers play, you are at best trying to scrape some value from another teams waived players. This would be that value above what the contract is for, what the team waiving the player values them at, and what you would have to pay to keep him. For most veteran players who have limited trade value; this marginal value would usually be slim to none. If your GM has time to play in this arena either have already won multiple world series and have a “set” roster, or maybe is just that rare gm who can even afford to rest your best players during a playoff race.

    Second) it is disrespectful to the player and is a fundementally bad faith use of the waiver system. Dejesus had to suit up in the nationals crummy red sateen uni and play in a series in the cubs ball park for a gm and team that never really wanted him or intended to keep him. That isn’t how you treat a veteran player. Ask one how they would like that and what they would think about playing for a gm that would do that to you. Rizzo showed how he feels about players, he treated DDJ as a piece of meat. If you want to claim a player, you should have some real desire to have that player on your team, not just as a show pony for some other waiver wire claiming team down the line. If you just intend to flip him, don’t make him suit up and perform like a trained seal act before you toss him a fish (close as I can come) and send him back to the tank.

    I think the nats lost more in this slippery deal than they gained, both in how their own players view their FO, and how other gms will view them. As Not completely forhright in their dealings and cheap opportunists, a less than winning combination.

    • Rich H

      Do not know if you were right or exactly backwards. The argument could be made that Rizzo and the Nat’s did a great service to DDJ by letting him suit up against his former team and get the send off he deserved. It all matters how you view the system in general.
      The standing O that DDJ got as a send off made me glad to be at the stadium that day. Very Classy.

    • Edwin

      “If you just intend to flip him, don’t make him suit up and perform like a trained seal act before you toss him a fish (close as I can come) and send him back to the tank.”

      Does this apply only to waiver wire transactions, or all transactions? I mean, the Cubs have been using the exact strategy of signing players to flip them at the deadline for the past two seasons now.

      • D.G.Lang

        The Cubs situation is entirely different. Up front the players who signed knew in advance that the team was in a rebuild situation and that they were likely to be traded (NOT waived), some of them were recovering from serious injury and needed more time to recover and prove themselves viable for a major league contract with some team not necessarily the Cubs.

        It could be argued that the Cubs took a chance on signing them to see of they were viable, They were not signed solely to be traded because if the team had gotten off to a good start and would have been in contention for a playoff spot they most likely would not have been traded.

        It could also be considered that the Cubs gave those players a shot with a major league team with the possibility that they would be traded to a contending team who would NOT have signed them at the beginning of the season. In other words for some players they received a shot at a major league contract either with the Cubs or with a contending team if they proved worthy.

        That is doing good and right for those players who knew full well what they were getting into before they signed with the Cubs.

  • Aaron

    Let’s not forget that BASEBALL is not only a sport but a business. No one should be too surprised any more with what happens with trades, waiver wire transactions, contracts, etc. DDJ is looked at as an asset. Theo Epstein talks about players as assets on a regular basis, weather it’s discussing current players, international prospects, etc.

  • MichaelD

    Couldn’t the Cubs have put in a claim on the second waiver transaction? That seems like a third option to Brett’s above. It also seems like an obvious block to the Nationals’ strategy. The Cubs claim him and either the Nats pull him back or they let him go to the Cubs. The Cubs then immediately put him back on waivers. It seems the only way for this to play out as it has is for either

    1) Someone to be mistaken on DeJesus’s value (as it turned out the Cubs, but ahead of time that could have been the Nats), or

    2) The Cubs being uber cheap.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      I don’t think a team can claim a player they have already waived with X days after waiving that player.

      Keyword there is think… I’m not at all certain on that.

      • MichaelD

        I have not seen that anywhere in the waiver rules. Adam Rosales was claimed by the Rangers on August 2nd, put on waivers some time in between and re-claimed on August 12th, so that seems pretty fast. Admittedly I think that would have been Optional Assignment waivers and not Trade Assignment waivers so maybe it would make a difference.

        The only thing I could find to stop this at Arizona Phil’s site was this quote:

        “A club is not permitted to make a waiver claim and then trade the player to another club if the purpose of the claim was to prevent a third club from being awarded the waiver claim. (A waiver claim that is judged by the MLB Commissioner to have been made for this purpose will be revoked).”

        http://www.thecubreporter.com/awarding-waiver-claims

        However, that could just as easily be used to rule out what the Nationals did.

    • Noah

      But then you can just keep doing that into infinity. So the Cubs could have made the waiver claim, but the Nationals could have just said, “ok, take him, pay his salary and be on the hook for the buyout next year.” And then when the Cubs ran him through waivers again, the Nats could have claimed him before he ever got to the Rays.

      • MichaelD

        Eventually the clock will run out. Presumably the Rays (or anyone else) would not have had much interest after August 31st.

  • Theo?

    Theo blows another one, again. Was he even working for the Red Sox during their winning seasons?

    • DarthHater

      You see, Mr. B. Patient? Believing that this ^^^^ is a moronic comment does not make one a worshipper at anyTheo/Jed altar.

      • Mr. B. Patient

        :-)
        The difference is, you are referencing a specific comment that has a troll-like feel to it. It that is what TWC was doing, in a preemptive strike, I apologize.

  • Theo?

    I just want the Cubs to win…SOON!…within 5 years!…SOMEDAY! To me it looks like we have lots of minor leaguers but the consistency team is in terrible shape for the foreseeable future. I can’t be convinced otherwise anymore, we just keep sliding down this steep hill and then are given more Kool Aid to drink.

    • Theo?

      SOON AND NOT LATER!

    • On The Farm

      I feel like even in your best attempts to troll you contridict yourself. “To me it looks like we have lots of minor leaguers” and you follow it up with “team is in terrible shape for the foreseeable future”.

      Isn’t the whole point of minor leaguers is that they eventually make it to the major league club. If you are happy with the minor league depth you should be optimistic about the major league team’s outlook in the next few years.

  • cubfanincardinalland

    Amusing that Rizzo is being applauded, as if this was some brilliant move. In terms of risk reward, it was idiotic. He risked eating 2.5 million in contract for the Cubs, in the hopes he could pick up some b or b minus minor league player. David had to clear waivers twice, obviously no other team considered this to be an intelligent gambit.
    He also blocked some other teams, who really would have wanted him. Teams remember and will return the favor some day when the Nats are in contention.
    He also made his team look like a clown show having out on the field. What if he got hurt? I mean what were they thinking?

    • Kyle

      He didn’t clear waivers twice, or even once. He only got to the Nationals the first time and the Rays the second time.

  • cubsin

    I’ve always considered it likely that the Concepcion signing was a down payment on Soler, since they had the same representative and Concepcion was able to sign months earlier than Soler.

  • http://bleachernation Ferris

    It will be soon…look whete our farm system ranked two yrs ago and where it does now…..i see the cubs signing choo and maybe arroyo. Being somewhat competative and shurholtz an castro big trade peaces next july, 2015 o.f. of choo,almora,soler….i know were are all tired of losing but getting the minors fixed had to happen….top four pic this yr as well as bryant,jeminez,et.al. its gonna be a bright future.

  • Pingback: Lukewarm Stove: Waiver Trades, Ellsbury, Choo, Tanaka, Cano, Saltalamacchia, Navarro, More | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

  • Pingback: Royals Place Emilio Bonifacio on Release Waivers – He’s Free If You Take His Salary | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

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

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

Google+