Lukewarm Stove: Ellsbury, Padres Needs, Posting Deal, Pitcher Deals, Three-Team Trade, More

lukewarm stoveThe items to discuss had been building over the last few days until my poor Chrome browser was about to explode. That’s when it’s time for an absurdly long Lukewarm Stove …

  • All remains quiet on the Jacoby Ellsbury front. Probably partially for that reason, David Schoenfield recently wrote an interesting piece at ESPN arguing that the Cubs should sign the speedy center fielder. The primary arguments? The Cubs need a player like Ellsbury (top of the order, center fielder), the market looks much worse next year (a variation on “sign them when they’re available”), and Ellsbury is probably going to live up to his contract. I’d take some issue with the certitude on that last one, given Ellsbury’s injury history, but my biggest beef with signing Ellsbury has always been that he’s going to be most valuable in the years the Cubs don’t really need a valuable center fielder. Unless they plan to figure out a way to “go for it” in 2014 and (please) 2015, Ellsbury’s best years – the ones where he’s really making up for the meat of his contract – will be played on crappy teams. What’s the value there? I stick to my long-standing position on Ellsbury: if the Cubs want to lay in the weeds and try to pounce on the cheap late in the offseason if Ellsbury hasn’t been able to land a big contract, then that sounds great to me. But committing $100+ million to him? Without other nearer-term moves in tandem, I don’t think it makes sense.
  • Similarly, in a chat at FanGraphs, Dave Cameron notes the continued lack of serious Jacoby Ellsbury rumors out there, and wonders if the Cubs, specifically, will eventually get involved. From my perspective, that’s about the only scenario in which you could see the Cubs get involved: the $150 million suitor isn’t out there, and Ellsbury lingers on the market on into January. The Cubs kick the tires on a four or five-year, $15 million per year deal, and Ellsbury has to settle. I don’t think that’s at all likely, but hey, if it happened, we should all be thrilled.
  • The San Diego Padres are looking for a lefty bat and a lefty reliever, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Given the Cubs’ relationship with the San Diego front office, and the generally-believed availability of Nate Schierholtz and James Russell, yes, in this case, it is fair to speculate about a possible trading connection. Padres GM Josh Byrnes went as far as to say that he expects to have something done – who knows what, exactly – by the end of the Winter Meetings. Maybe we’ll find out soon just how available guys like Schierholtz and Russell really are.
  • According to a report out of Kyodo, there’s still no agreement between MLB and NPB on the posting system, but talks are expected to continue this week. Masahiro Tanaka’s future – and the offseason plans of at least a half dozen MLB teams – continues to hang in the balance.
  • Speaking of which, with all of the mid-to-lower tier arms coming off the board, and with big fish waiting on Tanaka, Buster Olney wonders who is going to step up to sign the biggest three starter pitchers left on the market – Matt Garza, Ervin Santana, and Ubaldo Jimenez. Garza won’t be coming back, and Santana is out there reportedly asking for nine figures. I can envision a scenario where the Cubs consider Jimenez, but probably only if they miss on Tanaka and Jimenez’s market crumbles to the point where he’s got to take a short-term, relatively inexpensive deal. His velocity is gone, but he really reinvented himself last year.
  • On the mid-tier front, Ken Rosenthal reports (like, right now, it’s an ongoing reporting kind of thing) that the A’s are closing in on a deal with Scott Kazmir. He would have been an interesting option for the Cubs, but a Kazmir signing would make the A’s virtually certain to trade Brett Anderson, who could be even more interesting. More about that if a deal goes down.
  • Robinson Cano is no longer seeking a $300 million contract, and has lowered his demands to a Cyber Monday price of $252 million over nine years, according to Buster Olney. That still puts him some $80 million north of what the Yankees are believed to be offering, so the possibility that he goes elsewhere remains.
  • David Schoenfield knows how to get folks talking irrationally on the Internet. How? Crazy three-team trade proposals! He does his best to keep the proposals realistic, even if three-team trades are, by their very nature, extremely difficult to pull off (especially the star-caliber trades he proposes). Here’s his offer involving the Cubs:

Cubs: Trade Mike Olt, C.J. Edwards, Jorge Soler, Dan Vogelbach, acquire Chris Sale, David Phelps

Yankees: Trade Gary Sanchez, Zoilo Almonte, Vidal Nuno, Phelps, acquire Addison Reed, Olt, Vogelbach

White Sox: Trade Sale, Reed, acquire Edwards, Soler, Sanchez, Almonte, Nuno

  • I think the White Sox would probably want to do better than that in a deal involving Sale, but the Yankees and Cubs portions seem doable. If you’re the Cubs, you do that deal without thinking, right? Phelps is an intriguing option, and Sale – even with the wonky delivery-related injury concerns – is a true ace who is just 24 and is under reasonable control for the next six years.

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

117 responses to “Lukewarm Stove: Ellsbury, Padres Needs, Posting Deal, Pitcher Deals, Three-Team Trade, More”

  1. waittilthisyear

    pure speculation here, and i am no advocate of signing ellsbury, but if the cubs inked him to a heavily front-loaded contract, would that dissipate any concerns about when he performs up to the level of his contract?

    1. Cerambam

      You don’t want to front load contracts for many reasons, inflation is one of the biggest ones.

      1. FarmerTanColin

        In no way does this counteract inflation in my mind but if you do frontload or give a hefty signing bonus…the trade potential later on could be higher but that is also counteracted by just sending money with the player. I suppose frontloading is just never ideal.

        Yet Edwin Jackson is getting the same amount of money per year I wonder how that process went down. 11 mil per I think with a hefty signing bonus.

        1. Eternal Pessimist

          The other issue could be the Luxury tax, but I don’t see the Cubs threatening that cap any time soon, which will make Tanaka a very unlikely signing IMO (since a lot of his cost won’t apply towards the Yankees overall Salary numbers).

        2. MichiganGoat

          There are no signing bonuses in the MLB (at least not major ones) there are performance bonuses but they don’t add much to a big FA signing.

          1. Andrew

            Edwin Jackson did get a big signing bonus (8million). That was the rare case where frontloading made sense because that 8 million was taxed at a significantly lower rate than it would have had it been paid in the latter years of the contract.

            1. Die hard

              Jackson for Pujols if Angels pay the difference? Cubs could use his bat and guidance to youngsters especially Latin players

              1. Voice of Reason

                Guidance to youngsters?

                What the hell are we trading for?

                A baseball player or a babysitter?

                Guidance to youngsters…. oh brother!

              2. On The Farm

                “Cubs could use his bat and guidance to youngsters especially Latin players”

                So what the heck is Renteria going to be doing, chewing gum?

    2. Professor Snarks

      I think if you get him for 5 or 6 years, it won’t matter much. If most of ‘The Plan’ works, our Major League roster will be very cheap in 2018/2019.
      I think the key factor really is when the Cubs brain trust thinks we will actually be a playoff contender. If they think 2016, paying for two years of Ellsbury while we are not winning may be worth it for 3/4 years of him when we are winning. If they don’t think they will really be going for it until 2017, then wasting 3 years of him to get three winning years from him becomes less cost effective.

    3. MichaelD

      As Brett said front-loading does not make sense from an accounting standpoint. The exception would be if you were expecting to be above the luxury tax at some point in the future and even then it might not make sense.

      1. hansman

        Luxury tax doesn’t care about front- or back-loading. If you sign a player to a 10/$100M contract, it counts as $10M a year regardless of how you pay it out.

  2. Cerambam

    I think that I would want the cubs to go for elsbury if they also could acquire tanaka; however, because I doubt they’d spend on both (regardless if they could actually get both even if they wanted) makes going after either rather unlikely

  3. Jon

    I just get the feeling that Chris Sales arm is going to explode, at any given moment.

    1. bbmoney

      Yeah. On it’s face you make that deal immediately if you’re the Cubs.

      But I would be terrified he’d pitch 1/2 a season, blow up, and never be the same. You can say that about any pitcher, but I think it’s a bigger concern with Sale.

  4. Rebuilding

    I would certainly like that 3 team trade. Why the White Sox would trade a 24 yo lefty ace signed to a team friendly contract, unless the MRIs last year were horrible, I’m not sure.

    1. Jason P

      Their farm system is barren and a trade like the one above would net them 3 top-50ish guys in one deal. Then again, that organization is in band-aid mode right now, and it’s questionable whether they’d acknowledge the need for a full rebuild.

      Soler, Edwards, Sanchez, and change is not a bad return for Sale. It’s not great either, but not terrible.

  5. Kyle

    I assume the Padres want *good* LH hitters and relievers and not just anything we have lying around.

    1. Rebuilding

      They are talking about moving Erlin, Stultz or Burch Smith in such a deal, so I don’t think they have to be too good. Shierholtz for Erlin would make me happy

    2. TC

      The article specifically mentions a guy who could provide 400 PAs from left side of plate, sounds like they’re only looking for a platoon guy (which Schierholtz is)

    3. Funn Dave

      They are two of our better, if not best, players.

      1. FarmerTanColin

        And very replaceable. Trading relievers is one of the best ways to bring back value. With LHP in the minors (Raley, Rusin, Rosscup) I think we would could find one that works for an inning here and there. As for Nate I like him and hes one of the better platoon guys but still replaceable. A lot of lefties can hit righties to league avg to above.

  6. johnny chess Aka 2much2say

    Ellsbury, Castro, Bryant, Rizzo, Olt, Schierholtz, Castillo, Barney

    1. Chad

      You no likey the Baez?

  7. Isaac

    No, thank you. I am not betting Soler, Olt and C.J. on Sale’s left arm. Way too much risk.

    1. TC

      I’d do it in a heartbeat. Edwards can’t seem to hold velocity late in games yet, and his thin frame makes whether or not he ever will a very serious question. Olt could turn into a very solid 3B….but could just as easily never get his eye problem truly fixed. Soler is a good prospect, but the elite ceiling has kinda gone away. He may still end up a very good corner outfielder, but that’s now his ceiling, not his realistic outcome.

      Sale, on the other hand, is a monster pitcher. I don’t think people quite realize just how great he has been so far. He’s got insane secondary stuff, he’s very deceptive, and because of that should continue to be extremely effective even once the velocity starts to fade. He’s a top 5 pitcher in baseball right now, and he’s signed to a very team friendly contract. I’d take on the risk with him any day of the week

      1. Isaac

        I think that’s a reasonable position to hold, it’s just not the one I hold. He is the last of the “ace” pitchers I’d bet on.

      2. Jim

        Just looking at that trade scenario the one big item really jumps out at me … Why wouldn’t the Yankees be going after Sale in that deal?

        1. Chad

          Yankees don’t have the prospect to pull off any big trades.

    2. Funn Dave

      Prospects are inherently risky. I’d say Sale has far less risk than those three, especially since Olt probably won’t end up doing much, Edwards might be too good to be true, and expectations for Soler have come back down to Earth.

    3. David

      Seriously? I’m all for the rebuild but the way some people overvalue Cubs prospects is ridiculous.

    4. Voice of Reason

      Isaac wrote:

      “I am not betting Soler, Olt and C.J. on Sale’s left arm. Way too much risk.”

      That is insane! Sale is one of the best in the game. Who of those three do you think that we can’t live without? Sale is one of the best starters….

      1. Voice of Reason

        And, I forgot to add that Sale is 24 years old.

        1. Isaac

          It’s only insane if you believe Sale can make us a contender in the next 2-3 year’s, of which I have no belief he can. This is not nearly so much a valuation of any of those prospects, and much more that I don’t believe Sale will be a stud when he is 27-32.

          1. Voice of Reason

            Isaac,

            The question of whether or not Sale makes us a contender in 2-3 years was never raised?

            To respond to whatever in the hell it is you’re trying to say…

            I’ll trade those three for one of the best starters in the game right now. And, I’ll roll the dice since he is 24, that he will be a solid starter for the next 6 years. We should be contending by then. I’ll lock him up so he doesn’t hit free agency and I’ll have that left handed starter for many years!

            Again, the problem is, the White Sox aren’t trading Sale for that package. They will want more! And, Isaac, says he wouldn’t trade those three for Sale……

            1. Cubs_Questions

              The problem is that Soler and Edwards figure to be important in making the Cubs competitive in the next few years. So if you remove them from the equation, even if you get Sale, you set yourselves back since they’re a part of the plan.

              You just have to gauge whether you think the benefit of having Sale outweighs the detriment of losing a couple of guys like that. And even if Edwards doesn’t end up a starter, he very well could be a solid back of the bullpen type.

              1. Chad

                We know that not all prospects pan out. The cubs hope that Edwards can be a SP, but he’s just to high A, and Soler has only played at high A as well and there have been some mixed reviews though he is still ranked highly. If you can turn those two potential contributors into a legit ace who is locked down for 6 years you have to consider it. It all depends on his arm issues etc., but I think the cubs would be happy to do it. They are trading established players in hopes of finding a prospect that can eventually turn into a Chris Sale.

              2. Eternal pessemist

                If those two provided 1/2 the war that Sale is likely to provide i would be surprised.

            2. Matthew Nomad

              Take Edwards out of the equation and I may consider it. I could see Olt and Vogelbach on the trade block regardless, and even Soler is a reasonable piece to sweeten the pot. Ace or not, I don’t see our front office giving up young pitching to aquire Sale. Something to do with that “exploiting the power deficiency” theory on the Cubs market.

              1. caryatid62

                Sale IS young pitching. He’s only 2 (2!!) years older than Edwards, and has already had a Cy Young caliber season.

                Enough with overvaluing prospects.

                1. cub2014

                  ya and most pitchers start to come into their
                  own at about 27yrs old heck he could end up
                  being randy johnson-esque.

                  i dont think the cubs have enough to get him

                2. cub2014

                  For Chris Sale, Sox need 3rd base 1st base OF
                  and lefty bullpen so…….
                  Villanueva,Rizzo(they are looking to win now)
                  Schierholtz & Russell. (I think that might do
                  it)

                  Rizzo could be replaced with a FA OF-1B this
                  year and we have Vogs and Candelario coming.

                  Sale is controlled until 2018 only 6-7m per year.
                  What a coup if they could get him.

                  1. Turn Two

                    Villaneuva, russell, schierholtz and rizzo for sale??? I assume this was a joke and i shouldn’t even respond, but if the sox did that Rick hahn would be gone real soon.

                    1. cub2014

                      turn two no joke it would take prospects
                      with it. Have you read about some of the
                      potential rumored offers already out
                      there?

                    2. cub2014

                      however I just read hahn said last
                      week that sale is the one guy that
                      is off limits. so the rumors of trading
                      Sale are just that.

                    3. Turn Two

                      Sox don’t want Rizzo and our garbage for their one good piece of a rebuild.

                    4. cub2014

                      its a mute point (because doesnt sound
                      like they are trading Sale) but the only
                      “garbage” is schierholtz. The other 3
                      are all people that fit current needs.
                      Obviously there would be prospects
                      involved. Again we are arguing about
                      something that isnt going to happen

                    5. hansman

                      Moot point

    5. Jason P

      24-year-old cost-controlled aces rarely if ever come on the market. If Sale came on the market and we passed up the opportunity to get him without giving up any of our top 3 prospects, we might not get another chance to get a player of his caliber. That player clearly isn’t in the system.

  8. North Side Irish

    2 years, $22M for Kazmir…

    1. bbmoney

      wow.

  9. dw8

    Word is, now that Kazmir has signed with the A’s, that Brett Anderson is on the trade block. He might be cheap in terms of prospects. Basically would be a one year, $8 million deal with a 1.5 buyout or 12 million option. I do have irrational love for Anderson, so I might be more excited than most about this possibility.

    1. Jon

      If the A’s are ready to throw in the towel on him, I’d be suspious..

      1. ssckelley

        Not when you consider that Brett Anderson is still owed $9.5 million and we are talking about a small market team in the A’s.

        1. Voice of Reason

          That same small market team just signed Kazmir to $11 million dollars a year over 2 years? So, throw that “small market” comment right out the window.

          1. ssckelley

            The Kazmir signing is exactly why the A’s have Anderson on the trade block. A team like the A’s cannot afford to add $11 million to the payroll without trimming somewhere else. Anderson is the most logical since the A’s do not have room for him in the rotation and he is owed $9.5 million.

            1. Jon

              And back to my original point, The A’s would rather pay that money to Kazmir, who’s older btw, then Anderson. It tells you what they think of Anderson’s ability to stay healthy moving forward.

              1. Rebuilding

                Billy Beane, for all of his brilliance, has also been known to get frustrated with players. Anderson has been slated to be their #1 the last 2 years and has gotten injured. Could be he’s just tired of waiting for potential and wants a sure thing. The A’s are in a much different spot than we are. We can let Anderson work through it

              2. Norm

                Maybe they think they are of equal ability?
                If they do, they could trade Anderson and get a different asset(s) in return and sign Kazmir. That way, if they believe they are equal, they stay the same quality, while adding other pieces.

                Point is, if you have a player and a free agent that you think are basically the same, trade the player you own, sign the free agent, and your team is better off since you added pieces in trade.

  10. EuroCub

    Even if Ellsbury doesn’t sign for somebody in December, i don’t think he will get less than $18-$20mil a year contract and he definitely going to get 4 or more years on it.

  11. MightyBear

    That Schoenfield article is exactly what I’ve been saying for months and is exactly correct.

  12. FarmerTanColin

    I wonder how much Brett Anderson could take to get. What about Alcantara and Hendricks?

    I would also trade Nate and Russell to the Padres asap aaand if I were the White Sox I’d probably test the waters on Sale. That delivery can’t be sustainable….can it?

    I’m also a believer in signing Ellsbury though if he falls to the 15 mil a season range then it would be a no brainer for me but I think a lot of other teams would be interested as well.

    1. Jon

      Alcantara and Hendricks for Anderson would be an awful move for the Cubs.

      Can someone please explain the Brett Anderson love to me?

      1. dw8

        Agreed. That’s too rich.

        The love comes from the notion that when Anderson is right he hits the “Holy Trinity” for pitchers. Some K’s, limits BB’s and Groundballs galore.

      2. hansman

        He apparently got all the bad luck that Wood avoided last year.

        Groundball pitcher, keeps walks low, HR below league average.

        Alcantara and Hendricks would, probably, be an overpay but there is a lot to like there if he can put it together for a full season.

      3. Jon

        And “should” he put it together, then you only have him cost controlled for 1 more season.

        I’d give them Matt Szscur and nothing more.

        1. ssckelley

          Or perhaps Brett Jackson. It should not take much since we know the A’s are not sending money along with Anderson. Someone like Jackson might be someone the A’s would be willing to take a chance on.

      4. FarmerTanColin

        Maybe not Alcantara if the Cubs pay for his salary. Career 3.51 FIP yes injury problems but he shouldn’t cost much in prospects. The upside of a bounce back is a 26 year old that could be a 3-4 WAR pitcher.

      5. Rebuilding

        When healthy Anderson has looked like a potential ace and is a 25 year old lefty. The key part of that sentence is “when healthy”

        1. Rebuilding

          And personally I would do Alcantera and Hendricks for him in a heartbeat if the training staff was ok with his medicals. Alcantera looks to be a good, but not superstar, caliber of player at a position that I think is eventually Baez’s. Hendricks projects as a #4 or 5 starter. Anderson could be the TOR arm you are looking for that only become available when they have injuries

          1. dumbledoresacubsfan

            Like you said previously, when the dude’s healthy, he shows some really good signs. But over the past three seasons, he’s thrown a grand total of 163 innings…. You don’t give up Alcantara and Hendricks for that.

            1. Rebuilding

              Anderson had TJS in 2011. It’s been seen over and over again that it takes at least 1.5 years to get back to normal after TJS. Last year he had a broken foot so it’s not like his arm injury reappeared.

              Talk about prospect creep. Just exactly how high of regard do you hold Hendricks? Do you realy think he is much better than Rusin? And Alcantera might sneak on the back of some Top 100 lists, but I see nothing that indicates superstar. He put up a nice year for a 21 year old in AA, but faded badly down the stretch.

              A back end Top 100 and a potential 4/5 seem about right for a guy who started on Opening Day for a team that won it’s division last year before breaking his foot

          2. Chad

            I think Alcantara could be a piece in a bigger trade down the road, and I only think it only takes a system (11-20) type of guy for this deal. I doubt many teams would give up very much for Anderson.

            1. Rebuilding

              You and I (and it seems quite a few GMs if the chatter plays out) disagree there. I think you will be surprised by the package Beane gets for Anderson. I’m pretty confident that it will be better than Alcantera and Hendricks

  13. johnny chess Aka 2much2say

    Samardjia and Castillo for Weiters and Johnson

    1. bbmoney

      Jim Johnson?

    2. Rebuilding

      Why would we downgrade at catcher? Castillo is better than Wieters. And then also trade a solid SP for a closer? Geez

    3. On The Farm

      God I hope not, because the O’s would be laughing all day after they got off the phone completing the trade.

      1. D-Rock

        This isn’t fantasy baseball. That trade would be horrible for the Cubs.

  14. Jon

    I think it’s safe to say that Theo and Billy Beane share a very similar organizational philosophy. So when the A’s jump in on Kazmir and the Cubs aren’t even the discussion, I think it’s pretty clear Ricketts has cut off Theo’s balls from a financial perspective.

    1. bbmoney

      Or it’s safe to say that either:

      1. Theo and Hoyer didn’t think Kazmir was worth that (seriously I’m shocked he got that deal…2 years…guy threw 1.2 MLB innings in 2011 & 2012 combined).
      or

      2. Kazmir would rather take that amount to go pitch in a pitchers paradise than a similar offer from the Cubs.

      But you can create your own story lines which include financial castration if you want.

      1. Voice of Reason

        That’s just ridiculous to pay that much for Kazmir.

        I see the reasoning, though. He’s left handed, coming off a solid year and has had success in the past.

        And, the big key, you’re only locking him up for two years so if he flops you’re only on the hook for two seasons and $22 million total (isn’t it amazing that the word “only” is thrown in when we’re talking about $22 million dollars for a starter who is really below average!).

      2. Chad

        I think that is a very important point when talking about guys like Kazmir and Hughes. They may not like the cubs due to the fact that they aren’t going to be contending for a few more years, or if they are trying to rebuild value the cubs may not be the best for them (hitter’s park etc.). I’m not sure who the cubs are going after, but some guys just would prefer to play elsewhere.

      3. Jon

        The front office(Thoyer) even admitted they don’t have the financial resource they original thought they would have.

    2. Norm

      How do you know who was in the discussion? This was the first anyone has heard of Kazmir all offseason.

  15. woody

    First and foremost I continue to hear the Ellsbury rumblings here. He is 31 years old now. The Cubs probably won’t be competitive until 2016. I agree with Brett that maybe a five year deal for 75 million might be OK. Assuming that he is still in play after this Tanaka free for all is over. I don’t see the FO making any substantial signings until they see if they can him (Tanaka). I think the Cubs would be foolish to include Edwards in any deal period. Sometimes there is too much emphasis put on a prototypical player type. Everybody wants a 6′ 5″ stud that weighs 250 pounds and throws a 95+ fastball. With Greg Maddux ready to be inducted into the hall of fame I wonder how many guys like him are being passed over for these falme thrower types? Travis Wood is a good example. He follows the game plan set up with the pitching coach and keeps the ball away from the happy zone. I for one think Edwards will exceed expectations. Sometimes those skinny guys who are sometimes referred to as “wiry” can surprise you. For a team with a weakness in pitching it would be foolish to trade a top five prospect who was just named pitcher of the year without giving him a full season to prove himself.

    1. Voice of Reason

      Please stop bringing up Ellsbury. He is not coming here. The Cubs will want to get him on the cheap and once they make a cheap offer, there will be another team waiting in the bushes that will take him and outbid the Cubs.

      You heard the front office say they are not signing any big contracts this off season. Ellsbury qualifies as a big contract by the way.

      I don’t want Ellsbury anyhow. Why would you sign a man to such big money who has missed one out of every 3 games in his career?

      When we’re ready to compete we can trade or sign a better lead off hitter than Ellsbury!

      Everyone just has to be patient for another year!

      1. YourResidentJag

        Ummm….ok.

  16. Lou Brock

    Why not offer Ellsbury a renewable year to year deal based on games played. Set at a number like 140/145 and if he meets the number his deal is renewed, if not, he becomes a FA.
    Sign him to a 24 million one year deal , renewable.

    1. Voice of Reason

      Because some other team is going to guarantee him over $100 million dollars!

      Why would Ellsbury take the chance that he gets hurt and can’t steal a base anymore in the first year of that “renewable” deal?

      1. Lou Brock

        Then I do not want him and have shown him to be only about the money. Mark Grace never had more than a one year deal with the Cubs and that turned out pretty well for both sides.

  17. Voice of Reason

    Mark Grace never went on one year deals with the Cubs?

  18. jmc

    patient for another year? Yesterday’s discussion figured 5 years at least

  19. YourResidentJag

    Study on FO’s ability to find value in players: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-end-of-the-bench/

  20. YourResidentJag

    Tim Brown ‏@TBrownYahoo 19s
    The posting proposal to Japanese officials: There would be a max bid. In event of more than one, those teams vie in negotiations for play

  21. Patrick G

    Call me crazy but I would not do that trade for Sale. Guy has great stuff but think he’s bound to have arm troubles

  22. YourResidentJag

    robneyer ‏@robneyer 4m
    Thanks to Retrosheet, we’ve now got an entire century of box scores http://sbn.to/1bdPPd2

  23. Serious Cubs Fan

    ellsbury on 5yr $15mil per deal would be awesome but no chance it gets to that point. once the price gets low enough for a contender that team will snatch him up before it gets to be a value for the cubs

  24. @cubsfa22

    Brett if we do sign ellsbury what do you think
    about also trading for Kemp? and what do you think it would take to get him

  25. Cheryl

    There are three things we don’t know or next season: 1. We don’t know what Castro will do
    (I’d trade him, but I know a lot of people disagree with me); 2. We don’t know if Rizzo will be better this season or not (If he’s better than trade Vogelbach. If he’s worse, trade Rizzo); and
    3. We don’t know how good Vogelbach will be. If he puts it altogeher this next season and you’ve traded him what will be the reaction then? On all three players we may just have to wait.

  26. cub2014

    oops, “moot point” my bad!

  27. cincycubfan

    I was against going after Ellsbury at the start of the offseason, but now I find myself wanting the Cubs to go get him. Even though his best two years will most likely be when the Cubs aren’t competitive (’14 and ’15), he can still be a productive player and important leader through the rest of the deal. If you look at the money committed to future payrolls you can see they could definitely take on a moderately big deal without hurting themselves in the future. I’d say 6yrs/120 million sounds like a reasonable deal for both sides.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.