David DeJesus Won’t Be Returning to the Cubs and Other Bullets

nobody f's with david dejesus cubsLast night, in between screaming fits from The Little Boy (who nevertheless always wakes up in the morning with a cheery smile … little bugger), I dreamt that I was back at the law firm at which I worked before doing BN full-time. I dreamt that I, together with two senior partners, was participating in a conference call about a case with the other side, and one of us inadvertently turned off our mute button (it wasn’t me). The other side heard our top secret talks, and the case was irreparably harmed. The next day, I was fired, because the firm was “very certain” that I had knocked the phone off of mute. I woke up as I was being fired, and, in my wakened state, I was pissed off that I hadn’t had a chance to defend myself in the dream. Like, I’m still annoyed. I seek dream vindication!

  • David DeJesus will not be returning to the Chicago Cubs next year, as the Tampa Bay Rays have picked up his 2014 option worth $6.5 million. That option came with a $1.5 million buyout, so it was a $5 million decision for the Rays, who apparently decided a quality fourth outfielder was worth that amount in this market. In some ways, it’s incredible that the Rays are willing to commit $6.5 million to DeJesus for 2014 (and calls into question the Cubs’ internal evaluation of his value). When the series of waiver moves was going down involving DeJesus in August – first the Nationals and then the Rays – there was an overwhelming volume of chatter indicating that no team would be interested in DeJesus’s option, and the Cubs have savvily just saved themselves a buyout (those foolish claiming teams! Don’t they know they have to pay the buyout?). Maybe that’s still true, or maybe the market continues to shift dramatically, and
  • There was a time when it was possible that DeJesus would be the exception to the rule that a guy traded midseason before free agency never returns to the team that traded him. But, then it suddenly didn’t seem all that likely that DeJesus would return once the Cubs inked Ryan Sweeney – a similarly-skilled and positioned player – to an extension (which, at just $3.5 million over two years with a cheap option year on the end, looks like a hell of deal, particularly when compared with DeJesus’s). Good luck to DeJesus with the Rays. He was a good one.
  • The Fall Stars Game was Saturday night, and I hope you watched if you had the opportunity. Not that we didn’t already know or hadn’t already seen … but Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant are huge. In the game, their squad was stomped by the other guys, but each of Bryant and Soler had a single (Soler also drew a walk). Bryant unfortunately had a couple of errors at third (one of which was a standard groundball that went through the wickets and led to a run), though he also made a nice play. Albert Almora played right field after Soler, and went hitless in two at bats.
  • Tim Kurkjian writes up the top ten storylines for this offseason, which is understandably heavy on the hot stove stuff.
  • Wendy Thurm on the new national TV contracts and the salary obligations of each organization heading into 2014. The Cubs, by Wendy’s calculations, are at just $58 million*, meaning they could commit to an additional $40 million in 2014 salaries at this point and *still* see a near $10 million drop in payroll from 2013. I’m not sure there are $40 million worth of wise contracts out there to be had this offseason, so I’m bracing myself for a steep drop in payroll … which probably won’t bug me much. If the Cubs make a serious run at Masahiro Tanaka and Shin-Soo Choo, that’s about all I’d ask. The rest of the moves, which will be less expensive, should focus on the next tier of players on short-term contracts. (*Per Wendy’s calculations, which do purport to include arbitration raises. I’m wondering, though, if it includes the $13 million the Cubs still owe Alfonso Soriano. If not, obviously the numbers become suspect.)

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

137 responses to “David DeJesus Won’t Be Returning to the Cubs and Other Bullets”

  1. Kyle

    “there was an overwhelming volume of chatter indicating that no team would be interested in DeJesus’s option”

    And I distinctly recall arguing at the time that such chatter seemed to make absolutely no sense whatsoever and DeJesus seemed to be extremely undervalued by it.

    1. Kyle

      Oh, and David DeJesus has a career OBP of 353 and SLG of 417. Sweeney has never posted an OBP that high in a single season, and last year with the Cubs is the first time he put up a SLG that high.

      The reason DeJesus is quite a bit more expensive than Sweeney is because Sweeney is quite a bit worse at baseball.

      1. BT

        Wait, are you arguing that the Cubs should have signed DeJesus to a 6.5 million dollar extension, or that there are people who think that Sweeney is better than DeJesus? Because I think the former makes almost no sense and the latter is an argument with an extremely small group of people.

        1. Kyle

          “Wait, are you arguing that the Cubs should have signed DeJesus to a 6.5 million dollar extension, or that there are people who think that Sweeney is better than DeJesus? Because I think the former makes almost no sense and the latter is an argument with an extremely small group of people.”

          I’m arguing that the people who thought that DeJesus’ option shouldn’t be picked up by whatever team he ended up with were crazybuckets. And I’m arguing that DeJesus is likely to be a better player for a 2014 baseball team than Ryan Sweeney (not necessarily a better value, just better at playing baseball).

          If the Cubs could afford to, they should have eaten some of DeJesus’ salary to get a decent prospect for him at the deadline. The fact that they couldn’t leads me to suspect that they couldn’t afford to and that they had no choice but to let him go for salary relief. Which sucks that we’ve gotten to this point, but I’m not criticizing the front office for that specific move in that specific situation.

      2. jt

        2008 – 2011 Sweeney had over 1500 continuous PA’s which resulted in an OBP of over 0.345 (annually 0.350, 0.348, 0.342, 0.346). I’ll let others decide the significance of the difference twixt those years and 0.353.
        Sweeney will be 29 and in prime years coming off an OPS year of 0.772 while DDJ will be 34 coming off a declining OPS year 0.724.
        I respect your right to spend your monopoly money the way you see fit. I’ll follow the lead of the FO in this decision and spend mine on Sweeney.

        1. hansman

          Kyle takes every opportunity to bring the FO down a peg and relishes in doing it.

          1. Kyle

            This had nothing to do with the front office being taken down a peg. I like Ryan Sweeney. He’s just not as good as David DeJesus and it’s silly to imply otherwise.

            1. hansman

              In 2013 Sweeney WAS better than DeJesus and it’s entirely reasonable to think that, if he can stay healthy, he will still be able to outproduce a player 5 years older than him.

              1. Kyle

                “In 2013 Sweeney WAS better than DeJesus and it’s entirely reasonable to think that, if he can stay healthy, he will still be able to outproduce a player 5 years older than him.”

                This line of thinking requires us to believe that a career-high wOBA in 70 games at age 28 is Sweeney’s real ability level and all that worse performance in earlier seasons was just him warming up, or something.

        2. Kyle

          What happened to 2012 and 2013? Why did you cut them out?

          1. jt

            Sweeney has NEVER (emphasis mine) posted an OBP that high in a single season,
            –Kyle
            I believe those 4 years fall pretty close to the statistical margin of error thing that others refer to as luck. While the “never” does past the truth test, what is its significance?
            Sweeney was not good at all in 209 PA’s while with Boston in 2012.
            Sweeney’s OBP fell from those approximate 0.345 four year numbers to 0.324 in 2013 (same as DDJ) but that was accompanied by a rise of over 0.060 points in SLG from his career avg.
            No doubt DDJ has had to the more distinguished career. Are indications such that that will continue? If not, should The Cubs pay for past performance?

            1. Kyle

              “While the “never” does past the truth test, what is its significance?”

              It’s significant in that when one guy has never even reached another guy’s average (even though he came close in his best years), then his skill set in that area isn’t similar. And since decent OBP is both player’s primary skill set, it’s safe to say the players aren’t comparable.

              As to whether or not the Cubs should pay for “past performance,” of course not. We all know you never do that. It’s a meaningless platitude.

              This is apparently being turned into “should the Cubs choose Sweeney or DeJesus,” which is a bit of a deflection. Sweeney at his contract makes more sense for the Cubs than DeJesus at his contract in 2014. But that’s because I think the Cubs should be looking for the cheaper, worse player.

              1. DarthHater

                “It’s a meaningless platitude.”

                Josh Hamilton disagrees.

                1. Kyle

                  If I were a team with a lot of money to spare, I’d seriously think about offering to take Hamilton’s remaining contract off their hands.

                  1. Voice of Reason

                    Good thing you’re not calling the shots for the cubs.

                    Nobody would be willing to just take on that horrible contract.

                    Maybe if the angels picked up a majority of the contract and I’m a power hitter away from winning it all I would consider it.

                    But to say you would take in that contract?? Wow!

                  2. jt

                    ” I’d seriously think about offering to take Hamilton’s remaining contract off their hands.”
                    –Kyle
                    I’d think about it but I’d have to think very long and very hard.

                  3. hansman

                    Mmm, 4/$100 for a 33-year old that will probably give you 25-30 HR a year along with a .350 OBP? He’ll have been 4 years removed from an MVP caliber season and has been an above-average starter since then, sans last year when he was merely a passable starter.

                    It’d be a high-risk, high-reward proposition.

                2. SH

                  You’re missing the point. *Any* contract is “for past performance” to the same extent his contract was. The Angels looked at his numbers and felt that he would perform in a manner worth that much money going forward. They were wrong, of course — largely because it was the owner who pushed for it more than the baseball/stat people. But they didn’t “pay for past performance” any more than we did when we extended Castro and Rizzo.

                  1. MichiganGoat

                    Castro & Rizzo are being paid for the hope that they outperform thier contracts during thier prime years, whereas Hamilton was paid because he was a superstar in his prime years and hoping that it would continue for a couple of years and get them a championship. You see the difference?

                    1. Kyle

                      The fact that there is a difference doesn’t mean either of them qualify under “paying for past performance.”

                    2. SH

                      I hope you teach your students better logic than this.

                    3. MichiganGoat

                      Okay I know this discussion is going to focus on the minutea of what “paying for past performance” means. So yes all players are paid because they showed past success but as with any investment you want to pay for future growth and success and make decisions on those investments that are more likely to outperform the initial investment vs buying an investment that has already peaked and hope that the growth continues beyond where you started investing. The both contain risk but one is a better risk than the other, unless you need to make a quick splash to “win” but understand that afterwards you will have bad investment.

                    4. Kyle

                      “Okay I know this discussion is going to focus on the minutea of what “paying for past performance” means. So yes all players are paid because they showed past success but as with any investment you want to pay for future growth and success and make decisions on those investments that are more likely to outperform the initial investment vs buying an investment that has already peaked and hope that the growth continues beyond where you started investing. The both contain risk but one is a better risk than the other, unless you need to make a quick splash to “win” but understand that afterwards you will have bad investment.

                      This is another one of those places where the whole “ballplayers as financial instruments” metaphor breaks down.

                      If you could have infinite diversification and were only interested in maximizing ROI, then yes, those cheaper, less established players would always be preferable. But baseball teams have roster restrictions and are measured by competitive success, not ROI.

                    5. SH

                      @MC

                      So this isn’t about “paying for past performance” at all, but rather faith in a certain understanding of human beings’ usual arc of skill improvement and decline at playing baseball. I think it’s fair to trust that when making predictions for how to invest limited resources. But it’s also smart to realize that there are exceptions on both ends — sometimes a younger player doesn’t improve as the median player does (see James Loney), and sometimes an older doesn’t decline as the median player does (see Carlos Beltran).

                      Again, though, talking about it as “paying for past performance” proves nothing, because that’s what you do for *any* player you acquire at a cost.

                    6. SH

                      MG*

              2. jt

                “The reason DeJesus is quite a bit more expensive than Sweeney is because Sweeney is quite a bit worse at baseball.”
                –Kyle
                This is apparently being turned into “should the Cubs choose Sweeney or DeJesus,” which is a bit of a deflection
                -Kyle from a second post
                *
                At present, it is at least debatable if DDJ projects more production in 2014 (that projection for which Tampa is doling out money) than Sweeney. Therefore, it is debatable if at present “Sweeney is quite a bit worse at baseball”.
                Not a deflection!

                1. Kyle

                  There’s nothing mutually exclusive about those two statements.

                  David DeJesus is better than Ryan Sweeney and is being paid as such, but Ryan Sweeney is preferable for the Cubs in part because while worse, he is also paid less.

                  I understand that some prefer to make the case that Sweeney is just as good as DeJesus for 2014, but I think that’s placing way too much emphasis on his 2013.

                  1. ssckelley

                    Have you ever admitted to being wrong?

                    1. MichiganGoat

                      Not that I’ve seen ;)

                    2. Kyle

                      When I am wrong, which is constantly.

                      Let’s see, off the top of my head, pre-2012 I thought Sappelt should be given LF over Soriano. I thought that it was so important to get Wood in the rotation that I was willing to cut Dempster to do it. I said that it was a mistake to try to convert Samardzija to starting.

                      Pre-2013, I said that I thought Torreyes had a great chance to break out to be a top-100 prospect. I didn’t think Junior Lake would ever be a useful major leaguer.

                      I’m sure there are plenty more, but that’s just off the top of my head.

                      If Sweeney outplays DeJesus in 2014, we’ll add it to the list. It’s baseball. Everyone’s wrong a lot.

                  2. hansman

                    “I think that’s placing way too much emphasis on his 2013.”

                    2013 is a SSS; however, he is just beginning to exit his prime years while DeJesus is well past. In the likely event they see an equal amount of playing time in 2014; it is highly probable that Sweeney will outperform DeJesus (who also benefitted from a great deal of favorable matchups this year).

            2. SH

              If I hear “pay for past performance” one more time

              1. MichiganGoat

                You’ll what… pay for past performances ;)

                1. SH

                  bert-mad-o.gif

                  1. MichiganGoat

                    Nicely played

                    1. DarthHater

                      There is a resemblance.

                  2. YourResidentJag

                    Outstanding! :)

      3. hansman

        DeJesus has some nice career numbers; however, he has been sliding the past couple of years and at 34 next year, it’s probable that Sweeney will outproduce him again.

        “The reason DeJesus is quite a bit more expensive than Sweeney is because Sweeney is quite a bit worse at baseball.”

        Prime-age Sweeney compared to prime-age DeJesus, yes. 2013 Sweeney vs. 2013 DeJesus, no. Sweeney isn’t going to be that 5 WAR player we need, but odds are you will get highly similar production out of him but at a lower price to DeJesus.

        1. Kyle

          “2013 Sweeney vs. 2013 DeJesus, no. ”

          Even then, a bit of yes. DeJesus put up twice the fWAR that Sweeney did.

          I do think Sweeney is quite a bit of a bargain and I don’t think DeJesus is an ideal fit for the Cubs, so this isn’t criticism of the front office. It’s simply stating that anyone surprised that DeJesus’ option is getting picked up or that he’s getting paid more than Sweeney is misunderstanding the two players’ relative values.

          1. hansman

            True, DeJesus isn’t so horribly overpriced that it is a bad contract. Really shouldn’t have been surprising either way with him.

            Damn me and only using OPS and not looking at WAR.

          2. jt

            DDJ had 60 PA’s vs LHP of 439 total.
            Sweeney had 53 PA’s vs LHP of 212 total
            Does fWAR account for the difference in PA’s and use as a platoon?

            1. Kyle

              No, but if it did, it would also have to account for guys like Sweeney generally getting more favorable matchup treatment day to day. Or the simple ease of performing in shorter periods than longer ones.

              1. jt

                “Or the simple ease of performing in shorter periods than longer ones”
                –Kyle
                An important point!
                There are deficiencies in my argument.
                I assume fWAR is more the standard than bWAR?
                Still, there are deficiencies in fWAR.
                So it comes down to guys getting paid big bucks to evaluate. I’m sure they use use the WAR tools. I’m also sure they go beyond with their own tools.
                I’ve looked but have never seen the formula for f/bWAR(s) so I a certain distrust.

                1. MichiganGoat
                  1. jt

                    Thanks
                    I’ve buzzed through “position bWAR” and will read the the rest and fWAR later.
                    I do have a great deal of respect for the concept. They do refer to recent refinements and I’m sure that is an ongoing process. And as always that sneaky guy with the red suit and pitchfork hides in the details. But yeah, again, I do have respect for the concept.
                    Thanks again

  2. THEOlogical

    I was wondering this as I watched the NFL yesterday, and maybe someone can have a logical opinion about it, but does anyone think that QB’s have the same problems a SP might have at the start of the game? For instance, SP’s tend to not have their best stuff or the conditions aren’t suitable for them. Or maybe they don’t have the pattern down for where their arm should be to release the ball. It was in my mind the whole day yesterday…

    1. mdavis

      just from my own experience of playing in qb college, for me it was more about rhythm. Sure, there were games where some mechanics needed to get in line, footwork, etc. But i think rhythm is a big thing. Play calling, the types of passes you’re throwing,flow of the game, etc. just my humble opinion on that!

      1. THEOlogical

        Yeah, I thought there might be similarities between the two, but having only been a pitcher and not a QB, I wasn’t for certain. I was just curious if his arm slot, or mechanics, were similar to that of a pitcher. I forgot that it could be all of the other information they have to process.

        1. mdavis

          yeah for sure. I personally don’t think arm slot is as big of an issue when it comes to qb’s. a lot more to do with footwork, especially since they always have to throw around line man, and in seams and what not. Just watch a game of Stafford. He goes side arm, and more crazy angles with his arm than any qb i’ve seen since Favre.

          1. THEOlogical

            I’m a huge Bears fan (of course), but I actually get a kick out of watching Brees. I’m pretty sure after every game or practice that he’ll need an extensive neck massage lol. Peyton Manning will forever be one of my fave qb’s. One day I hope to take my family to go see the best qb there ever was.

            1. mdavis

              same here with the Bears. I’m a big Cutler fan (when he doesnt make that head scratching throw). But Brees is fun. Breaks the mold of the 6’4″ QB, being so short and just slinging it all over.

  3. Blackhawks1963

    A surprising move by the normally smart Rays. DeJesus is really not good enough defensively to play center field at this point. So they are paying meaningful dollars for a platoon type corner outfielder with limited run production value and who is already into his mid-30′s? Don’t get me wrong…DeJesus is a nice complementary ballplayer. But a strange contract by the Rays.

    1. cavemencubbie

      Didn’t DDJ play left field in the play-offs?

    2. Illini Iceman

      They need to go cheap and by giving the Dejesus / Matt Joyce / Delmon Young / Wil Meyers combination to Maddon for him to juggle as needed between DH / LF / RF they will avoid the need of going out and signing a pure DH at higher cost.

  4. BleedingCubbieBlue

    What about Josh Johnson on a 2 year deal. 2 yr 24 mil?

    1. Blackhawks1963

      I’d want to know everything humanely possible about his arm health. The guy seems like major damaged goods and has a troubling pattern of breakdowns and inconsistency. I don’t think we are THAT desperate for another starting pitcher.

      1. Patrick W.

        The fact that the team that has the most comprehensive medical data available on Josh Johnson didn’t think he was worth the risk of 1 year 14.5MM contract is a good reason to believe he’s not worth an AAV of 12MM. Especially in this market.

        1. CubFan Paul

          Or they simply just can’t afford to pay any pitcher $14.5M in one year when Buehrle is owed $18M, Reyes $16M and Dickey $25M over two more years.

          More than health when into the non tender decision, i’m sure.

          1. YourResidentJag

            Not sure about that…they’ve been rumored to go after Tanaka.

            1. CubFan Paul

              Everybody has been rumored to be going after Tanaka at this point,

              Tanaka won’t get a contract that pays $14.5M AAV either (because the posting gets paid up front).

              1. YourResidentJag

                That’s really not the point though. The point is that they’ve already sunk money into the franchise by paying contracts after trading key prospects. AA , like other GMs, is feeling the extreme pressure now (unlike where Theo is at), and Rogers Communications is loaded with $$$. That’s not to say they’ll get Tanaka or that the shouldn’t have held onto Johnson, but given that they had a year to experience Johnson, I’m inclined to agree with Patrick.

                1. CubFan Paul

                  “That’s really not the point though..”

                  Correct. My point was the $46M committed to the trio of players in 2014

                  1. Patrick W.

                    What I’m saying is, if Josh Johnson is worth 12MM per year to the Cubs, he’s worth 14MM for 1 year to the Blue Jays.

                    The Blue Jays decided that he wasn’t worth 14.1MM because he’s not based on his elbow surgery he had and whatever else, he just wasn’t worth it. They (I suspect correctly) determined he’s going to get a much smaller contract.

                    I don’t think that means don’t pursue him, but his contract will be closer to Scott Baker’s 2013 contract.

                    1. cub2014

                      i know it doesnt work this way anymore
                      but Baker should be signing with Chicago
                      for a discount.

                    2. CubFan Paul

                      “The Blue Jays decided that he wasn’t worth 14.1MM because he’s not based on his elbow surgery he had and **whatever else** he just wasn’t worth it”

                      What I’m saying is: the whatever else you are glossing over.

                    3. SH

                      “i know it doesnt work this way anymore but Baker should be signing with Chicago for a discount.”

                      The mystery of fandom in the post-Moneyball era. We think that our teams should be free market hard bargainers at every turn, capturing excess value from undervalued players and letting formerly-useful players go when they get “too expensive.” Meanwhile, players are individuals who should show loyalty and “return favors” to teams who paid them in the spirit of economics?

                      Baker should do what the Cubs FO does — get the best deal he can get.

                    4. Patrick W.

                      No, I get what you’re saying, I just think there isn’t any indication that it’s the true that the Blue Jays aren’t signing him because they wouldn’t sign ANY pitcher for that amount because of other salaries they are committed to. I think they specifically aren’t offering him a 14.1MM contract because he’s him.

                    5. CubFan Paul

                      “..because they wouldn’t sign ANY pitcher for that amount because of other salaries they are committed to”

                      Yes, the Blue Jays have unlimited payroll. I forgot about that.

                    6. Patrick W.

                      How is 14.1MM for a starting pitcher “Unlimited Payroll”? Isn’t there something in between? $14.1MM for Josh Johnson for 2014 would have been considered a bargain going into 2013. He came in the same trade that brought them two of the three players that are apparently making them so poor they can’t afford 14.1MM for any pitcher, so apparently your hypothesis is they made a trade for a bunch of guys that were real expensive, knowing that the youngest major league player on the best contract in the deal would be one they could cut loose to save some money in 2014.

                      My hypothesis is they went into 2013 thinking they had a real chance at contending and that Josh Johnson was going to be a big part of that. He had some serious performance and health issues, and based on those issues they decided not to sign him for 1 year and $14.1MM. Based on that bit of information I don’t think it would be wise for the Cubs to sign Josh Johnson to a two year contract worth 12MM per year. I don’t think it’s remotely possible that the Blue Jays thought Josh Johnson was worth $14.1MM but they just couldn’t afford him.

                    7. CubFan Paul

                      First off Patrick, that is not my “hypothesis”. You’re assuming.

                      And how are so intimate with Blue Jays future plans? As in, how do you know that Johnson was in their 2014 plans? (this is rhetorical/sarcasm since you speak with such assurance on the issue)

                      I could care less about Johnson’s value to the Cubs. The point I’ve reiterated (over and over) is what I ended my first post on this subject with:

                      *More than health when into the non tender decision, i’m sure*

                    8. CubFan Paul

                      “How is 14.1MM for a starting pitcher “Unlimited Payroll”? Isn’t there something in between?”

                      Reyes, Dickey, and Buehrle are due a *combined* $20MM in raises for 2014. <—more of the "whatever else" you glossed over.

                    9. Patrick W.

                      Well I apologize if I misread what you were saying. I assumed that this first sentence in your first post on the subject, “Or they simply just can’t afford to pay any pitcher $14.5M in one year..” was what you were talking about. I’m not sure how I thought that this sentence meant: ” they can’t afford 14.1MM for any pitcher” but somehow, I made that leap in my mind. Maybe you could clear up for me what other things than health you mean if not their poorness.

                      I’m not an executive for the Toronto Blue Jays, but as an outsider, I judge the various decisions they’ve made surrounding Josh Johnson indicate they liked him a lot, and were hoping to get something out of 2014 for him. He was clearly the centerpiece of the deal with the Marlins, there was talk at the time that they might try to extend him prior to the season, they didn’t trade him when they were over 10 games out at the trade deadline.

                      I think we agree they didn’t extend a qualifying offer to him because they were afraid he would accept it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that fear was rooted in the value he has vs. the risk and that was specific to Josh Johnson, and unrelated to their other financial obligations.

                    10. Patrick W.

                      What I suggest as your hypothesis has to be what you want us to believe. That the Jays made a trade knowing the full financial reality of that trade and the guy who was considered the best player in that trade was going to be too expensive for them in 2014. If you think it was a financial decision to not extend Josh Johnson, then you have to believe that they were either too dumb to add up their expected payroll for 2014 or they knew that they would let Josh Johnson walk after 2013 to save them the money to pay for the other guys in the trade.

                    11. Patrick W.

                      Stepping back, I guess there is the other option that the Jays thought his 2013 would be so good that he would decline a 1 year qualifying offer and thereby get draft pick compensation.

  5. JulioZuleta

    Can’t put a price on having Mrs. D as a fan. Should increase their attendance dramatically.

  6. Die hard

    You heard it here first- Ricketts will not spend one dime on a free agent unless he gets most of what he wants in renovations including signage

    1. MichiganGoat

      Fabulous more Nostradumbass predictions, here’s mine:

      Die hard will say more asinine, worthless fodder all winter WRITE IT DOWN!

    2. Brains

      hasn’t pretty much every news outlet and PR release said this in various subtle forms? the cubs aren’t going to sign impact free agents until they have higher profit margins. unlike most big-market teams, a large percentage of revenues go to the ricketts, not the players. so we’re looking at 3-4 more years of toiling until our rookies mature (if they mature), the jumbotron is in place, and the ownership green lights the signing of some stars to make the cubs a marquee team. i think it’s much too long. and it remains to be seen if theo will stick around to see the fruits of his excellent minor league labor.

    3. CubFan Paul

      “Ricketts will not spend one dime on a free agent unless..”

      Too late. Sweeney.

      1. Jono

        Edwin Jackson

    4. CubsFaninMS

      DieHard: You sometimes seem to be the equivalent of the “Bleacher Report” writer for this message board. Stirring conversation is Priority #1, logical reasoning and accuracy take a backseat.

  7. mdavis

    What about a target like Omar Infante? the good old, 5 minute former Cub? Yes, they’d have to try and deal Barney first. Maybe take a flyer on a Chris Young or Franklin Guitierrez as a platoon guy in the OF? Granted these aren’t exciting big moves, but just throwing it out there.

  8. Die hard

    Bryant is proving to be good hit no field — Cubs to lobby for DH in 2015

    1. MichiganGoat

      Please do some research and provide us one freaking reason why he is a “no field” player. But of course you won’t and continue to troll with your meaningless drivel.

      1. Fishin Phil

        ZZZZZZZZZ! That is the sound of my reel’s drag screaming as the massive Goat Fish takes the bait.

        C’mon MG, you know better old buddy.

        1. MichiganGoat

          Oh I know, sigh, but I’m tired of all the stupid uniformed bullshit that keeps being spewing onto the keyboard with these trolls.

  9. BleedingCubbieBlue

    DH will go to Dan Volgelbach

  10. JUICED1

    How is the payroll dropping by 40 mil this year? Does that number include Sorianos contract coming off the books because we’re still on the hook for most of it.

    1. Kyle

      Who said payroll was dropping by $40m?

      1. JUICED1

        I misread the article. It’s actually 50 million.
        Wendy Thurm on the new national TV contracts and the salary obligations of each organization heading into 2014. The Cubs, by Wendy’s calculations, are at just $58 million, meaning they could commit to an additional $40 million in 2014 salaries at this point and *still* see a near $10 million drop in payroll from 2013. I’m not sure there are $40 million worth of wise contracts out there to be had this offseason, so I’m bracing myself for a steep drop in payroll … which probably won’t bug me much. If the Cubs make a serious run at Masahiro Tanaka and Shin-Soo Choo, that’s about all I’d ask. The rest of the moves, which will be less expensive, should focus on the next tier of players on short-term contracts.

        1. MichiganGoat

          Does this 58M include arbitration raises? I thought some people on the MB have suggested that after arb raises we are looking at a higher number and thereby less FA money to spend?

  11. Jono

    Wow, the Yankees have a TON of money coming off their books (until they commit more during the offseason). Given that the Cubs don’t commit a lot of money this year, they’re going to have huge financial flexibility going into 2015. And wow, that just happens to come around the same time the first wave of these top prospects are expected to start coming up

    1. Jono

      to be clear, the fangraphs page shows that the Cubs will also have huge flexibility going into 2014, as well. I was just thinking about Soriano’s contract ending next offseason

    2. Brain

      hope you’re right! who’s a top free agent that year? in fact, what are the top 4? cause we’ll need all of them.

      1. MichiganGoat

        Hmmm how could we ever look that information up? I know try this:
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2015+baseball+free+agents

        Yeah research!

        1. Jono

          geez, there are so few young free agents, especially guys unlikely to get an option excercised

          Just looking at starting pitchers under 30 who interest me:

          Brett Anderson, 27, club option(maybe he gets traded to a wealthier team?)

          Homer Bailey, 29

          Johnny Cueto, 29, club option, even though his history of injuried worry me.

          Gallardo, 29. Eh, still, club option.

          1. Jono

            maybe the financial flexibility can be used to trade for a guy who will cost lots of money to keep, ie, David Price.

        2. Brains

          that is one crap list of free agents. makes me want to sign Cano even more. i can’t take this downward spiral any longer, everyone thinks it’s going to get better someday. things are getting worse now. the rules of magic and miracle don’t apply to team logistics, and they never have. if we can’t bring in a strong veteran to hit in the middle, we’ll never win. it’s kind of that simple.

          1. MichiganGoat

            chicken_little-sky-is-falling.jpg

            1. Brains

              YES

  12. CubFan Paul

    Bryant’s second error wasn’t his fault. The first baseman was a statue at 1B and missed that routine (rocket) throw.

    The first error, the groundball was all Bryant.

  13. JUICED1

    The flexibility created by sucking for 5 years in nice for sure. It’s nice to know if we develop any of these kids we’ll be able to keep them.

  14. MoneyBoy

    Brett… regarding Wendy’s $58 million. I have the Cubs at a bit over $71mm, which *does* include projected arb increases and $13mm owed to Sori.

    By that calculation, she’s a bit heavy at $58mm. Totally in the FWIW category.

  15. JustSaying15

    I rather see Kim DeJesus on the Cubs then David.

  16. cubfanincardinalland

    If the season started today, the Cubs payroll would be 73.35 million.
    I love me some Dejesus, but he is not a 6.5 million dollar player at this point. Automatic out against left handed pitching, and he is a left fielder. Sweeney is a better outfielder, and five years younger. Smart move by the Cubs.

  17. Bill

    Tanaka is the only free agent worth going after this season.Choo and Ellsbury are good but I wouldn’t sign them for more than 3 years.

    1. Jimmy James

      Agree…..other than that give me flipable assets ala baker,Feldman again.

  18. Dustin Smith

    In the end what was the Cubs return for DeJesus from the Cubs->Nationals->Rays trade fiasco? I’ve been keeping an eye out and haven’t seen anything (I realize it won’t be much), so I’m just making sure I hadn’t missed it somewhere along the way. If it’s still TBD, nevermind and I’ll just keep watching for news on it. Since it will be minor I’m more curious than anything. I am mostly in the Theo/Jed camp, but the DeJesus trade for nada would appear to be a move where they dropped the ball a bit. In hindsight, he definitely should have been moved for more before the deadline. So hearing now that Castillo/Samardzija/Castro are all somewhere between warm and hot on the trade stove, if they happen I hope any of those deals are handled more like Garza’s than DeJesus’.

    1. hansman

      “In hindsight, he definitely should have been moved for more before the deadline.”

      It depends if teams were truly offering more before the deadline.

    2. MichiganGoat
      1. Brains

        Another classic move from Jed Bartman. He’s batting 0 for 100 as GM. He has a bad situation climbing uphill, but he doesn’t have to pour oil into his sneakers to make his point.

        1. caryatid62

          You’re trying too hard now. It’s becoming self-parody.

          1. Brains

            Exactly. B)

          2. MichiganGoat

            Becoming? It’s a full blown pathetic troll account.

            1. Brains

              again, you’re the troll because you comment on comments, the rest of us comment on the team. a troll goat from a terrible state who drinks st. louis beer.

              1. MichiganGoat

                Oh keep trolling away you pathetic soul

                1. Brains

                  i’m more of a sphinx, or a gadfly. you have cardinals envy.

  19. Ronnie

    I like Sweeney better then DeJesus Sweeney is younger and has a little better power
    DeJesus wins the bunting contest in spring training and never lays down a bunt all season go figure

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.