Quantcast

jeff samardzija gatorade showerRight now the debate amongst Cubs fans seems to be whether the team should extend Jeff Samardzija or trade him. Those who have been following the story know it’s much more complicated than just picking one side or the other. From what I’ve learned, it appears the Cubs preference is to extend Samardzija. Of course, as with everything this front office does, they want to make sure that extension comes at what they deem as proper value.

We all know that Samardzija is quite confident in his abilities. While this is a great attribute to have, and Samardzija certainly has many great attributes, this confidence has likely kept these extension talks from getting very far. Samardzija believes he’s worth a lot of money. He’s right – look at what Jason Vargas just got (four years and $32 million), and consider that Samardzija would likely double the AAV of that contract on the open market. But the Cubs have some leverage here, since Samardzija isn’t hitting the open market for at least another two years. Thus, they hold the cards and Samardzija has to decide whether he’d prefer the security of a long-term contract, or if he’d rather spend the next two years in Toronto (or wherever).

And that’s where we sit now. The Cubs want to extend Samardzija, but talks haven’t moved far enough yet. Maybe when Samardzija realizes they actually are willing to part with him, he’ll be more open to listen to their hopefully reasonable offer (I’d say something in the five year, $60 million range is very fair). We can debate just how valuable Samardzija is, but I think he’s firmly entrenched himself as a number three* with upside for more, so a reasonably-priced extension would really be the ideal resolution to this situation for the Cubs.

*I won’t get into this too in depth right now, because it’s not the point I’m trying to make, but his peripherals the last two years lead me to this conclusion. His higher than normal BABIP last year led to the numbers that have some believing he regressed, but the issues for Samardzija remain the same as they were in 2012: if (and of course that’s always a big if) he can slightly reduce his HR/9 and BB%, he has huge upside.

However, as I mentioned on Twitter, I have a gut feeling the two sides won’t come to terms on a deal, and Samardzija will be traded in the next two weeks. If that happens, it leads to a very interesting point for the Cubs. Since Theo Epstein and company came aboard in November of 2011, many of us have pointed to 2014 as the year the Cubs take a small step forward, and 2015 as the year we can look to as a realistic point for when this team can contend for a playoff spot. We can debate whether that’s still a realistic goal, and if they’re actually on course to contend in 2015, but that’s not what I’m trying to do here.

My question is twofold. If Samardzija is dealt, does that change the message that’s being sent by the organization? And how does a potential deal alter, if it does at all, the timeline many of us have set for the Cubs?

Samardzija has been viewed as part of the core going forward since his breakout 2012 season. He’s someone who was supposed to blossom into a star alongside Anthony Rizzo and Starlin Castro and help ease future stars like Kris Bryant, Javier Baez and C.J. Edwards into the fold.

That was the plan, right?

Well, maybe not. We have to remember that this is all fluid. The front office is well aware that nothing is guaranteed. Castro isn’t a lock to bounce back and become the hitting machine we all expected. Baez may eventually be derailed by his aggressive approach both at the plate and on defense and never reach his superstar potential. And Samardzija may not be willing to sign an extension that the Cubs deem makes sense.

And that last point is the key here. The plan has always been to acquire young talent and keep said talent under control for as long as possible. Samardzija is part of the core only if he’s willing to take the financial security that the Cubs are offering. Otherwise, he becomes another valuable asset that the Cubs can flip for high-end talent that they can control for the next half dozen years.

At first blush, a trade of Samardzija may look like a step back in the Cubs rebuild. Dealing an established starter who has logged less than 600 innings and possibly has more to offer seems like an odd decision. But we’ve gone over why the organization believes they may be forced to do so. And the fact is, the timing may be perfect for the Cubs to put Samardzija on the market.

Right now, teams are spending insane money on the free agent market. Having the chance to acquire a pitcher like Samardzija, who is under control for two years at a cheap rate (in this market, whatever Samardzija will make in arbitration is insanely cheap), and who immediately upgrades a Major League rotation is something any team with ambitions to contend in 2014 would like to do. Add in that two of the teams reportedly interested in acquiring Samardzija (Arizona and Toronto) are coming off disappointing seasons and seem rather desperate to upgrade their rosters, and things may be lining up nicely for the Cubs.

We ultimately won’t be able to properly judge a Samardzija trade until we know the return, but the Cubs appear to be in a pretty enviable situation as far as having a highly desirable asset in a seller’s market. Just like the front office won’t settle for signing Samardzija to an extension they don’t view as a smart value, they won’t settle for a trade that’s not maximizing Samardzija’s worth.

In the end, the message hasn’t changed. But ultimately, it’s not the message that matters to many fans, but whether the Cubs are really on a timeline to start contending in 2015. Does moving Samardzija for prospects change that goal? Of course we don’t know what that return will be, but looking at solely this potential move, it’s tough to argue that it wouldn’t downgrade the Major League roster in the immediate future. Even if the Cubs can manage to snag an elite pitching prospect like Archie Bradley, assuming he’ll offer equal or greater performance than Samardzija by 2015 is optimistic.

Again, we’re down to what other moves the Cubs can make in addition to moving Samardzija. Can they surprise many and win the bidding, if it ever happens, for Masahiro Tanaka? Will they be spending big next offseason? At some point over the next year, will they put together a package of prospects to get an under control, front of the rotation-type arm to anchor the staff? And what if a trade of Samardzija nets multiple players who can impact the club in the next two years*?

*For example, does acquiring Bradley, Adam Eaton and Randall Delgado add as much value or more than Samardzija would have in 2015? At first glance, that seems like a pretty crazy return to me, but as I mentioned, this market has me reconsidering exactly what front offices consider fair value.

If Samardzija is moved, there will be much written about how the Cubs are once again pushing back their timeline for future contention. It’s hard to envision a realistic scenario in which a Samardzija trade makes the Cubs a better team over the next two years. However, we can’t judge the Cubs future solely on if Samardzija is dealt or extended.  Getting the answers to the above questions is the key to determining whether the Cubs timeline of contending in 2015 would still be on track.

  • Tony_S

    First, great piece, I enjoyed it and immediately had tons to say.

    But, everyone’s separately already hit on most of it.

    Shark was a Hendry guy, like it or not. There’s no loyalty or hometown discount here, and I find it fascinating people still hold out hope for it. Even in this article there are contradictions; you say he could get 16m AAV on the open market, but peg 5/60 as a place to start… If he could get 16 per on the market in two years, why would he take 12 now? Short answer, he won’t. Shark will get paid, whether now by the Cubs or in two years by someone else. Yes, you can argue injury or decline will derail that theory, but what matters is that’s what Shark believes. ‘But they’ve got him for 2 more years!’ True, which is why what’s driving this isn’t the need to extend him, it’s the skyrocketing perceived value.

    The third option we don’t talk about much is to do nothing, which is possible but unlikely. If you wait til next year (no pun intended), the return value goes down, probably significantly.

    So, if ‘do nothing’ isn’t realistic, they’re going to either need to pay him what HE thinks he’s worth (I would peg 5/70 as a more realistic starting point, with it getting done at 5/75 or maybe even taking 5/80), or they get what they think he’s worth in prospects. Which, they are at a minimum listening to offers.

    As for how Tanaka figures in, I think ideally you keep Shark AND land Tanaka, for ostensibly a sound 1-2 punch. And that’s not counting what you expect from TWood.

    But it’s hard to pay/overpay to keep Shark right now without even knowing if/when Tanaka becomes available.

    Titty sprinkles.

    • Funn Dave

      I think that last line really sums it up nicely.

    • Coop

      “…you say he could get 16m AAV on the open market, but peg 5/60 as a place to start… If he could get 16 per on the market in two years, why would he take 12 now?”

      Well, you have to factor in the 2 years for which he is still under control. He has to wait 2 more years to get to the open market. So if Jeff wants to sign an extension, he should factor that into the final value of the deal. If he could currently get a $16M deal on the open market, then a reasonable five year deal might look like this:

      Year 1 – $7M (current arbitration year)
      Year 2 – $10M (second contract year)
      Year 3 – $16M
      Year 4 – $16M
      Year 5 – $16M
      TOTAL = $65M over 5 years.

      That is roughly what folks are projecting would be an appropriate extension. And it is fair to both sides – the Cubs extend him at a slightly below market value over the full 5-year contract (because of the current 2 years of control) and Shark gets 5 years of good money (versus risking injury over the next 2 years and losing his big pay day). So it makes sense that the Cubs would start with an offer around 5/60, but might negotiate up a little. Shark is asking for the full value+, so something like 5/80-90. If that is the case, the Cubs don’t gain any value, so there is no incentive to extend him. It would be the same as enjoying the current 2 years of cost control, and then just resigning him at the end.

      • ssckelley

        IMO, Samardzija will get $20+ million per year on the open market. If the Cubs do nothing I think the estimate they pay him is $5 million for next year, so there is leverage into signing an extension. So I say give him what he is worth but pay some of it up front.

        Year 1 – $12 million (+7 over current)
        Year 2 – $12 million (+5 over estimate)
        Year 3 – $16 million
        Year 4 – $16 million
        Year 5 – $16 million
        Total – $72 over 5 years

        In this scenario you are basically giving him $20 million per year for 3, 4, and 5 but giving some of it to him up front.

        Then add in some extra incentives, for example:

        Top 5 Cy Young Voting – $250K
        Win Cy Young Award – $500K
        Win 15 games – $500K
        Win 20 games – $500K ($1 million total)

        This should not be very hard, give the guy the opportunity to make what he wants.

        • TulaneCubs

          Again, signing Shark for market value makes no sense.

          Shark at market value <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Prospects we'd get from Shark + another Shark caliber pitcher at market value.

          • mjhurdle

            the problem is that, on any given year, there might not be a Shark on the market.
            Im not against trading Shark, but you can’t act like you can just buy any pitcher on any given year.

            • TulaneCubs

              We’re talking about a #3 quality starter. I don’t see the pitching market going forward drying up to the point where you can’t find #3 starters on the open market.

              • Tony_S

                Ehhh, how many Shark-equivalent #3s are/were laying around in FA this year, and what are they going for?

                Based on *no research, I say not many and they’re too f’ng expensive in general.

                Not saying I necessarily disagree with the thrust of what you’re saying, but I do say that #3 you *should be able to find is increasingly becoming a tough pill to swallow financially.

                • TulaneCubs

                  But what I’m saying is if we’re paying Shark market value, then we’re paying him the same as those pitchers available on the open market.

                  This year, there are several guys that I think are at or around Shark in terms of quality on the market. Garza, Tanaka, Ervin Santana, Kuroda and AJ Burnett to name a few. Some are older than Shark, some have compensation attached and some have more durability than others, but they’re all roughly Shark caliber pitchers at this time.

  • BWA

    I just don’t understand how this could possibly be the right time to deal him. Say he nets us slightly more than Garza did, then wouldn’t he net us that same amount at this years trade deadline, assuming he doesn’t suck. If he is great, then his value goes up. And at that time of the year, teams don’t have any other options and they are in the hunt, meaning they should be willing to give up more. I think the Cubs need at least 3 top 100 (or fringe) prospects to even consider dealing him right now.

    • Funn Dave

      Garza was a half-year rental. Shark has two years. So he should net us significantly more than Garza did–not sure where you’re getting that he’d only be worth slightly more. If you wait a year, he’s only half as valuable. And if we aren’t competing this year, why keep him around on a team where his talent is wasted?

      “If he is great, then his value goes up.”
      And if he’s not, then his value goes down. And he’ll still have less time on his new team if we wait till his perceived value increases. If a good offer presents itself, I’d rather take the sure thing now than end up kicking myself next year when (if) his ERA is up and K’s are down.

      • willis

        Another thing, he hasn’t had (knock on wood) much in the wayof injury problems throughout his career. Which being a cub, is amazing. Anyway, Garza had some injury and durablity concerns plus only a half year of control. Shark, when traded, should (better) yield a much better return than Garza.

        If the price is right now, and they are hell bent on sucking for a few more years, then now is the right time to trade him. Much better than doing so during the season, if for anything else the risk of him performing poorly or God forbid getting injured.

      • Senor Cub

        I disagree. Assuming he has a similar year as the past two years, why would his value decrease at the 2014 trading deadline?! Whatever prospects you get are not going to make you competitive in 2014/2015. I would keep him until 2015 trade deadline, this way you have secured your #3 spot, #4 spot with Wood, #5 in your minors coming up. You have two years to land front of the rotation starters via trades or FA. I’ve said it a ton, you don’t need less pitching you need more pitching. Getting rid of Shark for prospects makes zero sense to me.

    • santos toupe

      he’ll be 29 going into next season and hasn’t proved a whole lot except he can strike people out. trading him now you can get 2 younger sharks that can do exactly what he is already doing for the cubs 4+ era and a whip above 1.35. he’s 14 months younger than garza without the talent. trade him.

      • Tony_S

        Wow, I completely disagree.

        I don’t see starters (even with that ERA and WHIP) giving you 9.0 K/9 laying around. And based on age, career path, etc, I’d argue Shark may have just as much natural talent as Garza, if not more.

        Now, harnessing it/teaching control is Bosio’s job, but I digress….

  • cub1

    I know his salary isn’t high right now, but trading him would free up some payroll to help sign another starter on a two year deal. Let’s say he was going to make 5 or 6 million this year and 9 the next, for a few million more you could get a respectable middle of the rotation guy.

    • Funn Dave

      Why exactly? Shark already is a middle of the rotation guy. You’re suggesting that we spend a few extra million to get what we already have?

      • TulaneCubs

        Because that slightly more expensive guy + prospects has greater value than Shark at a lower salary.

  • Jason P

    Great article. But here’s the issue I see with trading Samardzija. Teams way overvalue their own prospects.

    If you look at the top-30 or so prospects in the league for about the past decade, the number of pitchers who turn out being significantly better than Samardzija is in the 20-25% range at best. Another 25-30% become about Samardzija good, and the rest fall somewhere between worse and bust. Unless we get a top-10 arm like Bradley, I just don’t think the reward is worth the risk. If Aaron Sanchez is the only impact pitcher we get, then we just traded proven MLb performance for a guy who struck out less than 8 and walked greater than 4 per 9 innings still in A ball. There’s huge bust potential there.

    If they have to slightly overpay Samardzija, it’s still better than trading him IMO.

    • willis

      I agree with all of this. I hate the idea of trading him unless the haul is just so good it’s ridiculous. Getting some super young could be arms for a proven ML starter is ridiculous and only signals the wrong message. I’m hoping he doesn’t get traded, but if he is to be, do it now while the market is hot and settle for nothing less than a stellar package, with something that can help the cubs relatively soon.

  • cubswin2015

    Holding onto Jeff won’t make us all that much better the next year or two. If we can get a huge haul I say do it. I like shark but I just don’t see him taking huge steps from what he is now. As far as the timeline goes it really just depends on who they trade shark too. If Arizona then probably not much movement if to toronta I think a year pushed back due to where Sanchez is at (if that would be the centerpiece)

    • Funn Dave

      *whom *to *Toronto *where Sanchez is

      -BN Grammar Douche

      • davidalanu

        General douche. If you know what
        he meant, keep it to yourself.

  • Playoffs!

    I see Shark’s ceiling as #2, but I really think he is a #3 on a good team. I think he is worth E-Jax money personally. Years ago everyone called Shark a bust in the Hendry era. I think Shark overachieved to get to where he is today. I wouldn’t trust him in the post season, he plays down to the level of crapy teams too much… an Ace doesn’t do that. Cubs are in a great spot to get a HUGE return on him given the current pitchers FA market. Let’s get top prospects

    Go Cubs

    • willis

      He’s a solid 3 who can give you about ten dominating performances a year. I’m all for keeping that in house. Won’t happen though.

    • Jason P

      1 year ago everyone called him part of the core and a building block moving forward. Maybe 3-4 years ago he was a bust, but not last year. With his stuff, I don’t think he’s overachieved, but I don’t think he’s underachieved either based on how many pitchers there are with great stuff and just can’t control it.

      • ssckelley

        He is part of the core, but the problem is he is not signing on to be part of that core long term which is the only reason why the Cubs are listening to trade offers on him. The Cubs best option is to extend him but if he refuses to sign an extension and insists on going the free agent route then the Cubs have no choice but to get the best deal for him. If the Cubs were only a couple of pieces away from contending for the World Series next year then of course they would not trade Samardzija.

        • Jason P

          I completely agree and I still consider him part of the core as much as I do Rizzo and Castro and Wood. I was just meaning to say how the fans view him has not changed too much in the past year other than that his ceiling may have been lowered some.

  • waffle

    the FO isn’t going to blink. They will have a general idea what they would take for Shark and they will not deviate from that. I think they’d be happy to let him ride for another year or so. If he has a breakout year, which I fully think he is capable of doing, he’ll be worth that and more in the future (albeit with one less year of control…)

    • Senor Cub

      That’s 100% correct. An upside year(#2 potential) he is worth even more to the Cubs and the rest of the league. You don’t lose anything by keeping him. Worst case scenario he is a solid #3 on any team including the Cubs.

  • Bret Epic

    I don’t see a reality where Samardzija makes less than Edwin Jackson. If they can’t sign Samardzija to a contract along the lines of 5/70 or 4/60, I say they trade him while his advanced stats are glowing. I don’t foresee Samardzija asking for less than 4 years or 13 million, and that’s optimistically speaking. Once he inks his big contract, I think he’ll go for something around 5/80 or 5/90. Considering that Lincecum has been on the downslope and just signed for a 2/35, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think Samardzija will go for a comparable yearly salary, but more years. I see Samardzija as a 2 on a crappy team, but he belongs a 3/4. I think we overrate him because he is a Cub. Just because some advanced stats might say this or that doesn’t mean he’s mentally strong. I think that’s where he falls short. He’s a competitor, but he gets into his own head and when he does that, he tends go give up walks and home runs. Trade him and Schierholtz while they’re cost controlled and the value is high. Schierholtz had his career year last year and I think Samardzija’s value won’t be much higher, if any higher than it is now.

  • Frank

    The best thing for Samardzija, is to take some PED’s and get caught. Serve a 50 game suspension and then he can sign a bigger deal than what he’s worth. It seemed to work the other day.

    • Edwin

      How do you know Peralta wouldn’t have gotten a better deal if he had never been caught using steroids?

  • Aaron

    Samardzija has made millions to date even though he has not yet seen free agency. A big thanks goes out to Mr. James Hendry for this.

    Jeff and his agent on one side of the table. Cubs FO on the other. Shark has better cards than the Cubs do right now and is not afraid of waiting two years to win the bigger pot. If the Cubs hold on to their current cards and Jeff walks after 2 seasons, they might have wished the traded Shark earlier. Great game of TEXAS HOLD’EM here.

  • ColoCubFan

    This is just a gut feeling. I have NO proof of anything like this actually being true. But something tells me Theo & Co. are going to ship out every player that was here when they arrived.

    • Jeff

      They don’t need many more players to go to make this happen. I think that they are starting to play with fire. They are completely deconstructing this team and laying the cupboard empty. The reality is that this team will be completely stripped down by the end of 2015.

      That is year 4 in Theo/Jed, it will easily take 3 more years for them to be able to be competitive in winning a division.

      Simply pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A seven year rebuild, not what they were selling when he came on board.

      I have serious reservations that we will be competitive even after 7 years of Theo/Jed.

    • Jason P

      I’m sure they feel more committed to their guys — it would look awfully bad if they traded Rizzo — but every guy who was here when they got here? That would be over the top. That would mean Castro, Shark, Parker, Castillo, Baez, Vogelbach, and others if you count minor leagues. That’s not going to happen.

  • Diamond Don

    If you can get Bradley, Eaton and Delgado for Shark make the trade in a heartbeat. These three will help the Cubs much more than one #3 pitcher(Shark) will. Pull the trigger Theo, This is a no-brainer trade!

    • Jason P

      Well, sure it is from the Cubs perspective, but I’d say there’s about a 0% chance the Dbacks actually offer that. Randall Delgado alone had a lower ERA than shark last year, and yes I realize ERA is far from everything, but still, we’re talking about him, an underperforming but still young former top prospect, *and* the top pitching prospect in the entire game for 2 years of Shark. That’s a pipe dream’s pipe dream.

      • X the Cubs Fan

        Delgado is a reliever.

        • Rebuilding

          As I said in a previous thread Bradley is likely to outperform Samardzija THIS YEAR and is cost controlled for the next 6 years. Why would Arizona trade him for an inferior pitcher who is nearing a big payday? I do think they might trade Skaggs however simply because he struggled in a brief call up as a 21 year old. That’s when you have to get those kind of pitching prospects

          • Kramden

            But how do you know this for certain?

            • Rebuilding

              I don’t know if I’m going to wake up tomorrow for certain. But there is a high probability

            • Jeff

              Kevin Towers is his brother….lol

              All kidding aside I think Rebuilding is right, Bradley will be hard to get but Skaggs could be had in the right deal. Not sure if Skaggs is enough for Samardzija, He’s probably a #4 pitcher and I think Samardzija is at least a #3, could develop into a #2 if he improves, so that wouldn’t be getting anything better than what we have unless your solely considering years of control and cost and throw performance out the window.

              • Kramden

                I’m going with assman….

                He posted the Nats are offering the best quality in return. As much as I’d like to see the Cubs swing a deal for Bradley, I wouldn’t be disappointed with Giolito.

                • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                  I would be quite happy with Giolito. I was hoping that he’d somehow fall out of the first round and to the Cubs in that draft.

                  • Mike F

                    But I see all the writing and lust for Giolito, but what does the lust for not only this pitcher but others say about Almora. And that includes Wacha and several of the other people frequently mentioned all of who were taken after Almora. Mind you I think his floor isn’t bad but his ceiling isn’t as high as we probably thought. He is likely to start at Daytona and is probably ETA mid to late 2015 if he can stay healthy. I think though to be complete, Almora was thought to be a quick HS advanced player and he is on pace to take 4 years of minor leagues and probably 5-6 years of development time.

                    I think that is the legitimate concern some of have. So many here take this extreme that you can build through an exclusive minors approach. They wrongly assign that minors approach to the Cardinals. The Cardinals have always as they have this year been aggressive in intelligent use of trades and free agency. If indeed Theo is stuck on the minors alone approach he’s probably 3-5 years away from the playoffs and I’m not convinced the market will wait. You commit to build great development programs but always try to augment that for winning MLB with trades and free agency.

          • Jason P

            I’d say its doubtful Bradley even makes it to the bigs before midseason, and when he does, the chance is pretty low he puts it all together right away. He’s a great prospect, but not a perfect one. He’s still got to work out some control issues, and he’s not a sure thing like Samardzija. Bradley could become King Felix or he could become Trevor Bauer.

            I’ve argued based on prospect attrition rates and time value (if Bradley becomes a great MLB starter, it probably won’t be until 2017, whereas Shark offers a ready to win Dbacks team high value next year) that Samardzija for Bradley straight up would be fair. But adding in the other 2 is a bit excessive.

        • Jason P

          No he is not. He started 19 games last year, and only came on once in relief.

    • Senor Cub

      Bradley, Eaton, Delgado are in the minors you see. The chances of all them becoming impact players in the bigs is pretty small. The Cubs are not any of those players away from being competitive.

      Why not trade the abundance of 3rd basemen for a Bradley, Eaton, Delgado. I would even go further and trade any of the top 3 for great pitching prospects. In the end, pitching is what will win or lose you championships!

      • jeff1969

        Actually, Eaton & Delgado are major leaguers now. Only Bradley is full time in the minors. You have to remember that the other team has to want what you’re offering & be willing to trade the players you want in return. This isn’t baseball card trading where I’ll give you two Aarons for one Mantle & one Mays. I highly doubt the D’backs being willing to trade Bradley now. Without him, and barring Arizona losing their minds & trading nearly every other player in their top 10 for Shark, this deal won’t be good enough. Brett has said it a million times, if the deal you get offered now for Shark knocks you out, then you do it, otherwise hold him til the deadline. He still has another year after 2014 on the contract so he’ll be viewed with more value than Garza, if he stays healthy & pitches like he has been for 2 seasons. The only risk for the Cubs is injury & so far so good on that front. That’s it. End of story.

  • cubmig

    All this talk about trading Samardzija and stocking the minor league clubs with “hope” signings misses everything that has to do with witnessing a team that can win in the present. Sure all the moves the FO has made are posturing for the future, and no one can argue against building resources there. BUT, even that does not assure the investments those signings represent will mean those players will develop enough to move upward through the system. Overstocking (imo) only means preparing for attrition.

    My point is very pedestrian. I am interested in winning—- and yes—NOW. I want to keep those players that will help win games and where necessary add players (new or vets) who can help in that too. Hence, everything going on, stocks the shelves for tomorrow (figuratively speaking), but leaves us starving in the now—–again, figuratively speaking.

  • cubmig

    This reflects my point of my post above. Its taken from mlbtraderumors. Theo, please take note (and this guy is 36)

    “NOVEMBER 21: Giants GM Brian Sabean has shown an affinity for retaining his own guys, even if it comes at top-of-the-market value, and he’s done so again by agreeing to terms with left-hander Javier Lopez on a three-year deal. Andrew Baggarly of CSN Bay Area tweets that contract that has been in the works is a done deal, pending a physical. Lopez-JavierIt’s reported to guarantee Lopez, a client of Meister Sports Management, $13MM for his age 36-38 seasons. An official announcement is expected today.”

    • TulaneCubs

      I’m confused. You want the Cubs to do more of that type of thing?

      Overpaying for veterans currently on their team, like the Giants have done?

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

        I’m not sure the Giants entirely have this one wrong (although I have trouble with the Lopez deal). I think Sabean is thinking that today’s slightly overpay is tomorrow’s bargain. And historically, he’s pretty much right. By overpaying a little to lock up his stars as soon as he can, he may very well be nailing down some discounts a couple years down the road.

        Then again, they also just signed Lincecum and Lopez to some, in my book at least, questionable deals.

        So I’m really not sure what to think about the Giants at this point.

        • TulaneCubs

          I’m not talking about overpaying to lock up his stars.

          I’m talking about the overmarket deals he’s giving to aging veterans just to keep those veterans on his team. Veterans that will only deteriorate in value as they get further from their peak years.

          I would say that I like his deal for Hudson, though.

      • cubmig

        Sorry for the late reply……

        Obviously you don’t believe Samardzija is worth signing him. I do. Also, you made a case for not “overpaying” veterans, but missed my inclusion of “new” players as well. Once more; I believe Samardzija is worth re-upping with an offer he can accept. In other words have the FO close the money/years difference that exists between them. They KNOW Samardzija (as do those waiting in the wings for his service) and he can be a valuable piece moving forward.

        We differ, I know. We’ll just have to wait and see how all of this pans out.

  • Kevin

    Great article…that is all.

  • gocubs

    I don’t think the Cubs will get their best offers on Samardzija until after David Price is traded. Teams are going to want to hold onto their prospects to see if they can get Price. Once the Price trade is completed the teams that did not get Price will up their offers on Samardzija.

  • splatstrike

    It sounds like the nationals are offering the best package right now (per assman), and I’m guessing it includes Giolito.
    But if he’s as good as advertised (or could be), who would the nats package along with him?
    Could it be Giolito, Cole, Karns/Jordan/Ray, or is that too much?

  • WGNFAN

    2015 IS A DREAM. I even if shark stays. That year all the big talent from the minors will be coming up and starting to play mlb… 2017 until they get experience, then we can contend.

  • sven-erik312

    Trade him

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+