The Asking Price for Jeff Samardzija Has Indeed Been as Lofty as it Should Be

jeff samardzija gatorade showerA day after departing the Winter Meetings in Orlando without having traded or extended Jeff Samardzija, the Chicago Cubs outwardly plan on starting Samardzija on Opening Day. There have been worse outcomes.

And if the Cubs stick to their reported asking price on Samardzija in trade, it might actually play out that way.

According to Bob Elliott, when the Cubs spoke with the Blue Jays about a possible Samardzija trade, the Cubs were asking for both of Toronto’s top pitching prospects, Aaron Sanchez and Marcus Stroman, as well as a third prospect. The Blue Jays’ GM indicated to Elliott that trade talks – without mentioning Samardzija, specifically – continue, even if the acquisition costs remain too high at this point.

Each of Sanchez and Stroman are likely top 50 overall prospects in baseball, and it should go without saying that netting them both in a deal for Samardzija, let alone together with a third prospect, would be the kind of over-the-top deal the Cubs could not turn down. Indeed, that’s probably exactly where the Cubs’ asking price on Samardzija should be right now. Although the team’s control has dwindled to just two years on Samardzija, two years is actually a long time. Even if the Cubs didn’t trade Samardzija now, and even if they were hell-bent on trading him, they could shop him at the deadline – when the number of suitors might be down, but the desperation is up and the available options (no free agency) are reduced – or in the offseason next year. Yes, they risk injury in that approach, but they also could get the benefit of Samardzija performing up to his peripherals.

In other words, even if you accept that the Cubs cannot extend Samardzija (a possibility no one is quite yet ready to throw out), they have no reason to trade him right now short of a fantastic offer. And I didn’t even mention the value that Samardzija offers the Cubs in 2014 in terms of, you know, winning games. That, too, has incremental importance, even if the Cubs are exceedingly unlikely to chase the playoffs.

Setting aside the Blue Jays, the Atlanta Braves could be growing increasingly eager to land a pitcher like Samardzija. The Braves, in the thick of an increasingly competitive division, have already lost Tim Hudson and Brian McCann this offseason, and have yet to make a notable addition. It’s a tight budget in Atlanta these days, and adding a cost-controlled starter like Samardzija has to be a very attractive option.

To that end, David O’Brien writes that the Braves “could be leading suitors” for Samardzija, if he’s dealt. O’Brien adds, however, that the belle of the Braves prospect ball – big righty Lucas Sims – is off the table in talks about Samardzija. That could make finding a package that works difficult (though Sims is just 19, and the Cubs are believed to prefer upper level impact pitching talent – but, hey, talent is talent), especially if Sanchez/Stroman/+ is the standard bearer in what the Cubs are looking for. It’s not impossible to see a deal happening with the Braves, but it may have to be a whole lot of quantity.

A trade involving Samardzija still seems like the most likely outcome this offseason (even if those “99 percent” rumors now sound a little too much), but it’s possible no serious traction happens until after the Masahiro Tanaka situation is clear (coming, not coming? signing with whom?), and until after some of the big name free agent starters – Garza/Santana/Jimenez – sign.

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

185 responses to “The Asking Price for Jeff Samardzija Has Indeed Been as Lofty as it Should Be”

  1. ruby2626

    So sick of hearing about this Samardzija trade talk. My God he still has 2 years of control left, what the heck is the rush.

    1. C. Steadman

      they arent rushing…thats why the price tag is high

    2. Nate

      There is no rush, but it’s likely that the more control the other team would have, the better the package they would give up for him.

    3. Voice of Reason

      You are so sick of hearing about Samardzija trade talk?

      Well, there is nothing else to talk about. The Cubs aren’t doing anything.

      We could dissect the recent signing of that Japanese pitcher who had Tommy John surgery? We could list the top 5 moments of Ron Coomer while he was a Cub?
      We could debate the positives and negatives of the major leagues using wooden bats?
      We could name the top Strat O Matic Cub players of all time?

      1. Napercal

        Sammy Sosa 1998

      2. ssckelley

        We could rank the top 4 Cub prospects for the 50th time.

        1. X The Cubs Fan

          Bryant, Almora, Baez, Soler, Edwards, Alcantra, Vogelbach, Johnson, Olt, Vizcaino. That’s my whole top 10

        2. Jay

          If we do trade him, it needs to be for QUALITY, not quantity. Last thing we need is to give away a legit #3 starter on a good team (with #2 upside) for a bunch of guys in A-ball with low ceilings. Absolutely no reason not to hang onto him til at least July unless someone gives us everything we want.

      3. Koyie Hill Sucks

        “We could dissect the recent signing of that Japanese pitcher who had Tommy John surgery?” hahaha I must of missed this. It’s just comical at this point.

  2. Jon

    I don’t’ think either Sanchez or Strohman, singulary will be as good as Shark. Maybe in tandem, but I”m not sure.

    I would rather ride Shark and his wins for two more years, and let him walk for nothing, then take back ‘meh’ in return.

    1. Norm

      That sure doesn’t help the organization much…especially if you don’t think they can compete in 2015.

      1. Jon

        You know what doesn’t help the organization…..Trading really good players for mediocre prospects that either don’t pan out or are league average players at best.

        1. Norm

          That’s not true.
          If Stroman or Sanchez are league average, that would help the Cubs a lot more than Samardzija’s 2014 and 2015 help the Cubs.

        2. Randy

          agree Jon

        3. C. Steadman

          Sanchez is no “mediocre prospect”

          1. Jay

            Jon, that approach gets us nothing. Wins the next two years don’t mean dick. Either you trade him before next year or you sign him long term. There’s no 3rd option.

            1. cubsfan08

              Couldn’t there possibly be a 3rd option? If you are going to give him 20 mil a year, why do it over his arbitration years. Wait 2 years and then extend him and give him 20-25M / year before he hits free agency. Its not guaranteed, but from a Team standpoint, he’s cheap over the next couple years, and you hedge yourself by seeing how successful and healthy he is over the next 2 years.

              Can’t sign him now without a discount due to the ineffective/injury risk involved. If they want to sign him, they can wait. Might have to slightly overpay. Obviously can’t totally control it because you could offer him 50M / year and he could still say no and you lose him for nothing…but I think this would qualify as a “3rd” option – just not the preferred one most likely.

            2. Edwin

              More wins means better attendance and TV ratings. Maybe not on a directly linear scale, but wins are not completely worthless. There is a real cost with losing so many games. Maybe it’s a cost worth paying if it leads to more wins in the future (no need to go down that rabbit hole right now), but all the same it is still a cost.

              1. Norm

                There isn’t going to be an attendance boost/ratings boost because the Cubs win 70 games instead of 67 games.
                If you’re talking 80-something wins, sure, I’ll give you the ratings/attendance boost.

                And I’d wager that Stroman/Sanchez have a better chance at contributing to an 80+ win Cubs team than Samardzija does.

                1. Edwin

                  Right. That’s why I said that it’s not on a linear scale.

                2. EQ76

                  wins alone aren’t a measuring stick for ratings.. there are several things that can offer excitement and give reasons to watch. but I’ll say this, a crappy team with zero star power that will lose 90-100 games will have bad ratings. Right now, this roster offers NOTHING that excites me at all.

                  There are things that can make this team fun to watch even if they aren’t winning. Breakout performances, hit streaks, Castro and Rizzo performing, Bryant or Baez making their debuts later in the summer, all those things will boost ratings.

                  As of now, we look worse than last year and trading Shark would just add to that. I surely hope to see some roster improvements by spring training.

                3. Hee Seop Chode

                  Conversley, stars do sell tickets. I’d rather go to a game with Samardzja pitching that a “flippable asset”.

          2. Jeff

            Yeah, but….Sanchez is no “proven major league starter”

            1. C. Steadman

              did i ever say those words…nope

    2. Dumpgobbler

      It’s important to remember this when trading established talent. Sanchez certainly didn’t look like an ace level prospect ceiling guy. Stroman looked better, but also looks more like a reliever in my eyes.

      I’d rather take a look at Royals prospects. Kyle Zimmer is a guy I’d really like. Fresh arm, high K’s and already at AA with little pitching experience as it is. Yordano Ventura is another arm I like more. MLB ready and has showed great stuff all through the minors. Electric. Finally I like Almonte. Not as close to the majors as the other two, but very good prospect in his own right. Low WHIP, and over a K an inning.

      Maybe its just me but shouldn’t we be asking for both Sanchez and Stroman in a deal?

      1. frank

        Didn’t the post say they were asking for both Sanchez and Strohman?

  3. BD

    Is it just me or does Stroman sound like a future reliever?

    1. C. Steadman

      i agree on that projection

  4. macpete22

    I would take either one of Sanchez or Stroman in return, let alone both. Seems like it could be a good trade to include Vogelbach to make the return a little bit better.

    1. C. Steadman

      wouldnt want just Stroman…kinda projects more as a reliever in the bigs

    2. Jon

      Just Stroman for Shark would be a joke, and include Vogelbach? Yikes…

      1. macpete22

        I didn’t say Shark and Vogelbach just for Stroman. Obviously there would be other pieces involved. I don’t think Stroman projects to be a reliever either.

        1. C. Steadman

          in my opinion, he has a ceiling of a #2 starter and a floor of a power arm out of the bullpen…he’ll be given every chance to start but his 5-9 frame is a ? just like CJ’s skinny frame is

          1. Blublud

            I think their frame size, and the subsequent risk, is tremendously overblown.

  5. TulaneCubs

    Unless the Braves include Sims, I think it’ll be damn near impossible for them to put together a package the Cubs will accept.

    1. ssckelley

      I agree, if Sims is off the table then the Braves do not have enough pieces in their depleted farm system to make this happen.

      1. BenRoethig

        The only other piece the braves have that looks interesting is Mauricio Cabrera and he’s an unpolished wildcard that could develop into an ace, but is so raw.

  6. itzscott

    Seems like the Cubs are correctly indicating to any other interested team that this is the type of return it would take for them to trade Samardzija and if any team is unwilling to provide that type of return…. don’t even waste our time.

  7. C. Steadman

    i think Blue Jays are the frontrunner instead of it be rumoredly the Braves…i think a deal gets done for Sanchez and Stroman

  8. abe

    We will have to over pay for Samardzija or Tanaka. Will one would you rather over pay for?

    1. Mike W

      Id much rather over pay for Tanaka. He is only 25 and dominated Japanese baseball. Yes it isnt MLB but still Yu Darvish dominated last year in MLB. Shark is going to be 29 which isnt old by any means for a pitcher but Shark hasnt been that impressive and I cant see him being an Ace or #2 SP, time to trade him for top prospects if the Cubs are able to get that in return. We will see.

      1. abe

        I agree. Plus we can come away with nice prospect if we trade Samarzija.

  9. CubFan Paul

    Toldya the asking price for Samardzija was high. Just makes sense.

  10. JulioZuleta

    While I don’t think they have any shot of landing two top 50s for Samardzija, I’m glad that they’re still asking for that. I was under the impression that the price was quite less and they still couldn’t find a deal. I think they should wait it out until January or February at least.

    1. ssckelley

      If the Cubs cannot land, at least, 2 top pitching prospects in return for Samardzija then they should not make the deal. Right now everyone is putting a high premium on their prospects so I think the Cubs should just hang on to him and either see if the market changes or wait it out until the trade deadline.

      1. JulioZuleta

        I don’t think he’s worth Stroman and Sanchez, but if they can get it, more power to them.

  11. TK

    Tanaka can go wherever he wants. We already have Shark. The only wise choice to the question you pose is to keep Shark. THEN do what you can to get Tanaka. Otherwise, you could end up with niether.

    1. TK

      The above was to abe.

    2. dumbledoresacubsfan

      That would be the conservative thing to do. I don’t think you can say it’s the ONLY wise choice yet because we don’t know the outcome. If Tanaka chooses, of wherever he wants to go, to end up in Chicago, then trading Shark for a couple great TOR pitching prospects and maybe an OF would be the wisest thing to do.

      If you trade Shark now for some top prospects (throw in Russell? Schierholz? Vogelbach?), you have some more pieces that may talk Tanaka into coming to Chicago. Not only that, but you shed the prospect of paying too much for Shark and free up future cash.

      1. TK

        Tanaka is going where he wants to go, and I guarantee his decision wont be even minutely based on “prospects.” Do you know anything about the man? I seriously doubt his wife is willing to totally punt her career to be in Chicago. I hope so, but its unlikely. Odds are he’s going to the west coast, IF he is even posted.

        Its too big of a gamble. If we were trying to win the WS in 2014, 2015, then you go all out on Tanaka and deal with Shark later. Thats not the scenario here. If you let Shark go, even for good prospects ( WE AREN’T GETTING TAILLON, BRADLEY, WALKER TYPES FOR HIM — just get it outta your head) you are rolling the dice that you get Tanaka (unlikely) AND that whatever prospects you get in return develop into MLB studs (also low probability). Then you’re setting the entire timetable back God knows how long while you attempt to piece together a decent rotation. Meanwhile, you’re wasting how many years of control of The Corp????

        Ad since you say “prospects” could entice Tanaka, I say that IF his decision were to some degree based on something along those lines, the influence of having an already established stud rotation-mate locked-up long term would be considerably more attractive than the crapshoot of a couple “prospects.”

        Furthermore, you dont gamble the future of your team on a guy who is basically the same as a minor league prospect. He hasnt proven jack in MLB. He could be Yu Darvish, or he could be Hideki Irabu. Only a fool would let go of a very possibly ace SP who is fairly proven in MLB in order to increase the “likelihood” (to a lesser negative degree) of a) outbidding the monsters in NY and the West Coast, as well as Texas, and b) overcoming the odds of him chosing o go somewhere that is a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better fot for him and his family.

        Shark is proven, and he is ours. He is far more likely to be retainable. Tanaka is unproven (in MLB) and is far less likely to be obtainable.

        But thats all if you had to chose. I see no reason why the Cubs can’t keep Shark AND make a full court press for Tanaka. At least if he spurns us, we still have Shark to build a rotation around.

        1. dumbledoresacubsfan

          Oh, I agree with your last point–I don’t see why we couldn’t court both at the same time. But for the sake of continuing the conversation:

          I could see the positives in having Shark to entice Tanaka, but I think not having him would be enticing as well. If we get rid of Shark, Tanaka becomes “The Guy” in the rotation and doesn’t have to battle a proven MLB pitcher (unless we say he has to battle Travis Wood, which, duh) for the praise/starting jobs. Regardless, even if we had both Shark and Tanaka, both would be starting, but who would be our “fill-in” ace? Obviously, it would depend on whether or not Tanaka could actually competently pitch in the MLB and we can’t determine that.

          The family thing is a big thing to look at, as you noted with his wife. I think his wife would be willing to punt whatever career she had for the money–because that’s really what it will (likely) boil down to. She won’t need a career. The thing I see holding it back would be wanting to stay close to family not making the move. However, working at a science lab, I see plenty of people who left their families long ago and remain in contact with them and happy. Regardless of how we view ourselves and other nations view us, foreign families still think it a privilege to live in the USA.

          But Shark is 29 and will be 31 when his contract expires. During those two years, we are not “projected” to be a competitive team–so how many years are we really derailing the timetable? I see Shark being, at least, 32 when we become a competitive team. So unless he signs a team-friendly extension, we don’t even really project to require him until his current deal is up. And when do we expect his numbers to start taking a hit from where they’ve been?

          Do we lock him up and hope he lasts through his mid 30′s? Or do we trade him for some pitchers (who, like you said, are prospects and not guaranteed) who will be primed and ready to contribute during the years we need them (hopefully with a Tanaka added in–but it is unlikely)? Or do we keep him and hope that in years 33 and 34 he can still produce as he does right now?

          Mid 30s isn’t old and I don’t expect him to really show signs of decline by that age, but I do see him showing signs of wear and tear. I think the best thing for the team would be to trade him for a top package that will be ready to help when we need it.

          1. dumbledoresacubsfan

            By the way, just to be clear, I wouldn’t mind keeping Samardzija. I feel the same way Brett feels about it right now that unless they get a blow away package that they need to keep him.

            However, I think it would be a good idea to trade him at the deadline if he’s producing as he should this year.

  12. Drew

    If the asking price in a trade is so high, doesn’t that play into his camps hand to demand a higher priced extension from the Cubs?

  13. Jon

    Be patient and Kevin Towers will give us Bradley. He’s the GM you want to work.

    1. Fishin Phil

      I doubt it, but I hope you are right and I am wrong!

    2. Jon

      I’d like to see if we can engage the Pirates at deadline too…two out of these three would be nice

      Tallian, Palanco, and Glasnow.

      1. C. Steadman

        Taillon will probably be in the bigs at the tradedeadline…our change of getting him is probably now or never

        1. Jon

          I would take Palanco and Glasnow tbh. Palanco is blocked by McCuthchen, so that deal makes sense.

          1. C. Steadman

            i just want a little more pitching back for a Samardzija trade…but maybe thats just me

      2. TK

        Why in the world do you think PITT would trade Taillon, who is likely to be even better than Shark before long, and would be under team control for A LONG TIME, and is 22 y/o . . . for a guy that is 28 y/o, makes MUCHO more $$$$, is only controlled for 2 yrs, and wants $15m – $20m per???????

        You better be willing to include Baez in that deal.

  14. When the Music's Over

    It’s so hard to gauge what the Cubs should receive in trade compensation for Shark. I was thinking today about the Orioles (as they’ve been mentioned a suitor), and their recent string of highly regarded starting pitchers struggles in the big leagues.

    According to Sickels’s rating system, here is a quick snapshot history of their recent top 4 starting pitching prospects.

    Brian Matusz: 2009-B+; 2010-A; 2011-Graduated
    Chris Tillman: 2009-B+; 2010-Graduated
    Jake Arrietta: 2009-B+; 2010-B+; 2011-Graduated
    Zach Britton: 2009-B-; 2010-B; 2011-A-; 2012-Graduated

    If in 2010, the Orioles offered a package of Matusz, one of the other 3, and another lower level/high risk prospect or 2, I would think most Cubs fans would have been very pleased at the return. However, if you take actual big league results, Matusz is likely a bullpen pitcher for the balance of his career, Tillman is a #3/#4 starter, Arrietta is likely a bullpen candidate as well, and Zach Britton the jury is still out, though I’d guess he could be ticketed for the bullpen as well.

    In summary, the Cubs should be demanding a large haul, as the risk is so damn high.

    Also, let this example be a cautionary tale concerning prospect creep, relying heavily on prospects to meet or even approach 50-75% of their ceilings (eg, the prospects are 100% going to save the Cubs), and lastly for those that desperately want to trade Shark.

    1. AB

      Arrietta looks pretty promising for the Cubs, I don’t see an ace, but I don’t see him going to the bullpen.

      1. ssckelley

        You missed his point.

      2. When the Music's Over

        That’s a prime example of shiny new toy / prospect creep. Other than how hard he throws and his reported pitch movement, there is little in his major league statistical history that suggests he will ultimately end up as anything more than a bullpen arm (though he could end up a high leverage one if he can cut the walks). I hope I’m wrong, and I’m cautiously optimistic, but I will not expect anything from him at this time.

      3. X The Cubs Fan

        And Tillmans kind of a beast now.

        1. When the Music's Over

          Beast is a very liberal way to define Chris Tillman.

  15. Sacko

    Considering that Shark has been the only player mentioned for trade and for how much. He is the MVP for the Cubs right now. We better keep him but doubt very much he will accept a long term deal. Unless we put some valuable players around him.

    1. Mike W

      Shark is not the Cubs MVP. The Cubs do not have an MVP.

    2. Jay

      Sacko, No matter how much a player like Shark cares about winning (and I think even he sees that the Cubs will get to where they need to be in the next few years) he’s looking for his first big payday and he’s not going to care, at age 29 if it comes from a team on the rebuild or a contender now.

      1. Sacko

        I hope you are right, my thinking is we have a better team he is more likely to stay.

    3. C. Steadman

      2013′s MVP was Travis Wood

  16. Tremendous Slouch

    What would be the likelyhood of getting Teheran or even Mike Minor along a couple of their top prospects in a Samardzija deal?

    1. C. Steadman

      very slim

      1. When the Music's Over

        Zilch. Both are even or better pitchers compared to Shark right now, project to get even better and both are younger (significantly younger in Teheran’s case), and infinitely cheaper.

  17. Randy

    I hope they just sign him. How many of these kids are even going to make it. Nobody knows . Big crap shoot.

  18. since52

    OK, so not to be cynical, but all the Shark trade talk going into the meetings was bunk, perhaps to distract from FO intention to be non-players. “We’re here in AZ to listen to your insane offer for Jeff, which we’ll turn down anyway. See, we know our team stinks, and we know we’re going to trade Jeff, but this way we keep the ol’ hot stove stoked. See ya in July.”

    So ‘splain please, why not make a BFD that Shark is UNTOUCHABLE a la, Castro and Rizzo and Castillo to see if you can get potential trading partners to COME TO YOU and bid against themselves?

    1. Edwin

      Somehow I think declaring a player UNTOUCHABLE is not the best way to get a team to start bidding on him.

      1. Jeff

        You always want the girl you can’t have, plays the same.

  19. Jono

    Maybe the FO has confidence that Samardzija will pitch well in 2014 before the deadline and they know that no team will match their demands this off season. So, come July when (hopefully) he’s pitching well, the sky high demands over the off season will help get a big return in mid season. In other words, they might not have the intention of trading him now, but simply setting up for a huge return come july

    1. willis

      I don’t know about them, but I have a feeling he’s going to be awesome in 2014. He’s worked his ass off and learned a ton these last two years. I think he explodes this year. All I care is they hold onto him. He’s a strong power arm with a #3 floor. It’s the type of piece you build around, not trade.

      1. Adventurecizin' Justin

        I concur! The dude had 200 innings AND 200 Ks in ONLY his 2nd year as a starter…on a BAD team!! What if???? That’s where I stand!

        1. DocPeterWimsey

          How does the quality of his team affect a pitcher getting K’s?

    2. since52

      I think that’s right. And I also think it’s not the best approach by the FO. By taking Jeff “off the market,” you lose nothing and might get an offer you can’t refuse. If he pitches well,so much the better. But keep in mind with this team, he can pitch very well and still not win, in which case he is not a happy camper, at which point he is not the asset you thought.

      If he doesn’t pitch well and the team continues to struggle, attendance slips, etc., then panic begins to set in. The blue chip prospects you want ain’t gonna be quite as blue. As a fan, my concern is this FO overrating Jeff’s desire to stay a Cub, the same as Greg Maddux back in the day. Like Greg, I believe Jeff wants out unless and until he gets paid market price.

      Oh, and if for some reason he is here come 2015, doesn’t he then have the right to veto trades?

      1. C. Steadman

        nope he doesnt get those rights until 2019(he has 4.028 years of service time per BR) he needs 10 years total and then 5 with current club

  20. Senor Cub

    Let’s just assume Tanaka does not get posted this year. Does that make Shark the #1 pitcher on the market? I realize Price and other’s are out there however they come at a much higher price in terms of money up front ($5M vs. $15M). I am still hoping that Shark is retained but those two names from Blue Jays would make it more palpable.

  21. The Dude Abides

    No doubt it’s better to keep him than take on more prospects, problem is he wants nothing to do with spending his remaining prime years on the team. I don’t think he sees any light looking down the rebuilding funnel. Too bad, if were are lucky one of the prospects we get will match his proven ability at the MLB level someday.

  22. Antonio

    Maybe the Cubs could send Schierholtz along with Samardzija to the Braves in exchange for Heyward, Sims and Christian Bethancourt. That would be a great return for the Cubs.

    1. waittilthisyear

      certainly love the optimism, but that sounds more like a pipe dream

  23. Edwin

    I’ve always thought one of the bigger problems in trying to trade Samardzija was that the Cubs seem to want impact pitching close to the MLB level in return, which is tough, because if a team had impact pitching close to the MLB level, why would they need to trade for Samardzija? It would take a trade partner who was extremely willing to overpay to upgrade for a very short-term window.

    1. Jay

      You raise an excellent point, but there’s always a good chance that some team in contention has a pitcher blow his arm out and let’s face it–Smardj is a quality starter and still rather cheap all things considered. I’m sure there’d be team in that situation willing to deal more than they’d like to us.

    2. macpete22

      I think the Blue Jays could be that team. After making those trades last offseason they have a ton of pressure to win now

  24. Fastball

    I am also tired of the Shark trade talk. Let’s just get him signed to an extension and move on. I am not a big fan of Shark. I watch him pitch a ton of games. I don’t like that he is a thrower and not yet learned the art of pitching. He is a fairly successful thrower. But I don’t see him as an Ace unless he learns a lot about pitching. So what if we get an extension done? We got him for 5 years. I think what we should do is then go right after Homer Bailey with the Reds. His body of work the last 2 years is really good. I agree with all the guys at the Winter Meetings who think he is a 1 or a strong 2. The Reds pretty much have to trade Phillips. I don’t want him. Let them trade him somewhere else. But when 2b is vacant in Cincy we could put a deal together for them. Alacantara and a couple other real nice prospects not in our top 20. What do the Reds need. Figure that out and do the deal. I will not be surprised if the Reds trade Joey Votto. They can’t support his contract and Jay Bruces deal. We could send them Vogelbach possibly. There closer would be nice to have. I work about 2 blocks from Great American Ballpark and I hate the Reds. But I would love to have Chapman and Bailey. The Reds are gonna have to make some moves sooner than later. I believe Theo can go back to Cincy and make another deal as he did with Marshall.

  25. X The Cubs Fan

    Anyone want to try to predict the Cubs all-star(s) for 2014?

    1. C. Steadman

      hmm this could be a fun discussion…my bet there will only be one All-Star and I think Rizzo

      1. willis

        Shark if he is here. Wood maybe. Castro if he has a bounce back.

      2. C. Steadman

        darkhorse could be Castillo

        1. X The Cubs Fan

          Rizzo and Strop have all-star potential for next year.

          1. willis

            I know average is way unallowed to be talked about around here. But, I don’t think Rizzo will every have a high enough average to be considered an all star. It’s kinda shallow voting and picking. JMO.

            1. C. Steadman

              nope thats a very fair assesment bc i do believe AVG is very much apart of all star voting still…if Rizzo gets his average to 260 combined with 15-20 HR and GG defense at the break…he could be the only cub selected off a crappy team

              1. cubsfan08

                I agree with Rizzo, but to get the general voting public on board…I think the AVG would have to be even higher than that to get attention. .275+ and the HR’s you are talking about would generate plenty of buzz for him to get voted in one would think. It would also help if the HRs were featured on SportsCenter or something, but good luck with that. The general fan still emphasizes avg too much

              2. X The Cubs Fan

                I think eventually he’ll get it up to .280

      3. Blublud

        I pick Castillo last year, so I’m riding with him again?

    2. Pat

      If Castillo can repeat last year, I think he probably has the best shot. If not, it will come from the pitching staff, probably whoever the most effective reliever in the first half is.

  26. bobk

    An extension is the best solution. Considering how pitching becomes more expensive every year it would be prudent to sign him now even if the contract slightly overpays. He will only get more expensive the longer we wait.

    1. willis

      Agreed, because what they may see as “overpaying” now, isn’t shit compared to what they would have to pay to ink a starter near his capablity when they are “ready” to field a baseball team. Something in the $14-$15 million a year range would be a fair settling price if Shark wants to be a cub. My guess is at this point he’s pushing for more because he wants out.

  27. Die hard

    Cubs are so stupid– they believe Shark is as good as Shark thinks he is- both delusional and dysfunctional – a bad combo

  28. cubbiehawkeye

    I’d wait until the trade deadline. I think we can all agree that Shark hasn’t pitched to his potential. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he makes NL hitters look stupid next year. I’d like to see an extension but it looks like he is set on hitting free agency so get what value you can which I believe will be through the roof come July.

    1. Die hard

      No we can’t … He’s peaked already or have you’ve forgotten him trying to get past 5th inning?

      1. Lukas

        Yea because out of all the problems with this team, the lack of innings Samardzija pitched was the most troubling?

      2. C. Steadman

        he can get past the 5th inning…its the sixth that does him in(939 opp OPS)

      3. Leo L

        I agree. He might be near his peak. he has trouble when teams see his stuff the 3rd time around. that has to get better for him to be an ace.

      4. cubbiehawkeye

        I remember him slinging 97 late into ballgames on several different occasions. His third year as a starter with a 200 inning season under his belt…I bet he learned a lot from said 200 inning season. Great Athletes don’t just stop improving.

  29. Tennessee Cub

    He’s going to be at least 31 before the Cubs are competitive, trade him for some guys ready to pitch this year and be really good next year. Samardzija don’t want to resign anyway, he wants to win now and his patience is gone.

  30. Blackhawks1963

    Samardzija is doubtful now to be traded in the offseason. Hopefully he has a strong start to 2014 and his trade value is very strong come the July trade deadline. The Toronto package being rumored? I think it sucks. Neither one of those pitchers does much to excite. Tell the Blue Jays to pound sand up their ass on that one.

    1. C. Steadman

      a package of two TOR potential arms sucks?

    2. cubbiehawkeye

      I don’t think it’s horrible but I’m with Blackhawk, it doesn’t wow me.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.