Quantcast

shin-soo chooAlthough the Chicago Cubs were connected to him by rumors periodically throughout the offseason (indeed, stretching back into August), Shin-Soo Choo was always destined to go somewhere else.

Detroit and Texas made the most sense, and, according to Jon Heyman, it’s going to be Texas for Choo. Heyman reports it’s a seven-year deal, though no terms have yet been reported. You’ve got to figure the deal will be in the $20 million per year range, which feels a bit crazy for a 31-year-old corner outfielder with little pop and crazy splits, but, hey, that’s the price of OBP (just don’t count on him to repeat his HBP-inflated mark from 2013).

A teeny, tiny upside here is that signing Choo to a monster deal (after taking on Prince Fielder’s deal) makes it slightly less likely that the Rangers will be serious players for Masahiro Tanaka, should he be posted. The Yankees and Dodgers are still the primary competition, though.

Outfielder Nelson Cruz is now going to head elsewhere, and might be scrambling a bit to find the kind of huge contract he’d hoped to get when the Winter began. And the Angels, Mariners, and A’s will all have to consider just how much better the Rangers have made themselves in the near-term.

UPDATE: Reports say the deal is for $130 million, or about $18.57 million per year, plus a limited no trade clause. It’s a lot of money for a guy with some warts, but he inarguably makes the Rangers a lot better in the 2014-16 window.

  • CubFan Paul

    “will be in the $20 million per year range”

    I’ll take the under

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Yeah, I would, too. I doubt it’s lower than $18M, though. I’ll guess $19M.

  • TulaneCubs

    7 years, $130M.

    I don’t get this from the Rangers point of view. I feel like there were no other real suitors out there for Choo and that they could have waited until later in the offseason and got him on a 5 or 6 year deal.

  • Cubbieblur

    Glad we skipped on him didn’t need that kind of contract. Hopefully Cruz stays around long enough for a desparate two year deal with the Cubs. I’d be happy to have Cruz at 2/21 ish

    • TulaneCubs

      No thanks. Not worth it to give up a draft pick to sign a player for 2 years when we’re not going to compete in either of those years.

      • Andrew

        Nelson Cruz is not good and hasnt been good for awhile. He hasn’t put up more than 2 WAR since 2010. This guy doesnt deserve the QO that he was offered.

  • http://bleachernation ferris

    Any less detroit woulda been in….good move by texas,plus gets him out of our division, reds were tryin to move phillips money to keep choo.

  • aaronb

    Nelson Cruz to the Cubs on something like 3/45? Who would be against that?

    • cubsin

      Me, among many others. After his PED suspension, I thought a reasonable prove-it one year deal with a couple of much higher option years made sense. Ask the Blue Jays how happy they are with their Melky Cabrera contract.

    • mjhurdle

      Cruz has had one year where he was worth 15 million in his entire career, and that was while he was on PEDs.
      why would you then give him 3 years at 15 million now that he was busted for PEDs?

      • aaronb

        He gets dinged by Dwar ratings. His offense has been consistently excellent for 8 consecutive years now.

        • SenorGato

          I’ve become increasingly interested in Nelson Cruz as the offseason went on. The power’s legit, and I think positioning and coaching can mitigate some of the defensive damage (as could playing him in LF).

          • aaronb

            Exactly,

            The biggest issue in my opinion in judging guys using only WAR ratings is the wild fluctuations of DWAR.

            People forget to look at core competency like hitting tool and power in the march for once size fits all.

            • Canadian Cubs Fan

              Which is why Trout’s WAR is higher than Cabreras. Miggy gets punished for playing a lesser position, despite edging Trout in every offensive category besides stolen bases.

              • Drew7

                That’s actually not true.

              • Eternal Pessimist

                “Miggy gets punished for playing a lesser position”

                You realize you answered your own question here, don’t you?

        • mjhurdle

          i was going by oWar only, seeing as how his defense is so awful.
          If you factor in defense, im not sure 7 million a year for 3 years is a good idea for someone that *might* have been able to justify that contract while on PEDs.

          $15 million a year for 20-25 HRs, .310-320 OBP, and a 105-115 OPS+ seems ludicrous to me. And that is even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will hit as well at Wrigley as he did in Texas while on PEDs.

          • aaronb

            Even if he could only muster those numbers. He’s still be the best offensive player on our roster.

            • mjhurdle

              maybe. But that has no bearing on how much money you should pay someone who is slightly above average like he is

              • aaronb

                The market is going to dictate what you pay someone who is above average.

                Unfortunately that seems to be the rub with the Cubs right now. They don’t seem willing to pay anyone who isn’t at a scrap heap level.

                • mjhurdle

                  agreed on the market part, which would explain why Cruz is having such a hard time trying to get anyone to accept his desired 4 yr, 15 million a year.
                  someone will end up giving him a 2 yr, 10 million or so a year deal, maybe. But that team will have to be buying that his power (which is his only above average tool) wasn’t due to hitting in warm Texas and taking tons of PEDs. I personally don’t think the list of teams that view Cruz as legit is that long, but we shall see.

          • ClevelandCubsFan

            I don’t know his history but he hasn’t played a full season yet. Projecting some of numbers to 162 is very impressive. What about 3/27 with $1m bonuses for 120, 140, and 160 games?

    • another JP

      No way does Cruz deserve that kind of contract. I wouldn’t take him @ 1 yr/10M.

  • Michael

    Surprised the Rangers would do such a thing…If Nolan Ryan were still there I doubt this move is made. Rangers could have filled two outfield holes with that money instead of just one.

    • hansman

      Isn’t nolan still there.

      • Good Captain

        No he “retired”.

  • Rizzovoir Dog

    Cubs should offer Cruz a one year deal.

    • Michael

      He will get a 3 or 4 year deal somewhere especially now that the market for outfielders is pretty scarce

      • cub2014

        I see Cruz in seattle they still need a right handed
        hitter. Why would you spend that much on Cano
        and not field a solid lineup around him.

        • FarmerTanColin

          Yeah Seattle makes sense. Rotating LoMo, Hart and Cruz through the OF and DH spot. Their defense would be looking sketch.

  • cub2014

    I was all in on Choo for 5 years (7 seems
    pretty tough to swallow). Why bother with
    Cruz we have a bunch of righthanded hitting
    OF’ers coming. Choo solved two of their
    biggest problems the next few years. (OBP
    & left handed hitters). Its time for the kiddie
    parade, lets see what we got!

    • Pat

      Yeah, the only way I’d justify seven years is if the deal was more like 7/105, where you would be getting the last couple years at a huge discount and could release him or give him away if his effectiveness was reduced.

  • Cyberhog

    A crazy deal. Really doesn’t make much sense to me.

  • David

    Choo to TX also makes the stinky Reds worse! Go cubs.

  • Zachary

    No free agent is to rich for the cubs. I wouldn’t of signed Choo but almost every big free agent that signs is an overpay. Cubs better pony up some dough in a couple years.

  • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

    And this is exactly why the Cubs stayed away, anybody that wanted the Cubs to match this offer should be shunned. Horrible contract.

    • another JP

      Which is also why Boras has been goading Cubs management about not spending these ridiculous FA prices. As flush with cash that MLB is right now, teams are unloading $130-160M contracts on players whose regression will make the Soriano deal look like a steal.

      • BlameHendry

        Honestly, after the contracts handed out this offseason, the Soriano looks much more reasonable. Even with his performance in 2013, 18M for that is pretty reasonable compared to the going rate.

    • Edwin

      How so?

    • Kyle

      It’s a perfectly reasonable contract for Texas. Probably wouldn’t have been for the Cubs

      • bbmoney

        Yep.

  • Canadian Cubs Fan

    Brett, you nailed it with the “2014-2016 window” because after that he’ll be very overpriced. I’m guessing these teams have come to terms with the fact that the back end of these deals will really suck.

    On the other hand, the Soriano deal is looking less and less terrible comparably. He still had power to fall back on though, something Choo doesn’t offer much of.

  • cubsin

    I don’t mind overpaying for free agents, but a seven to ten year contract for a thirty-something player is just insane.

  • josh ruiter

    I do think 7 years is alot on Choo, but again I would have rather given him 7 than Ellsbury. I think in terms of deals Choo’s is better, not sad we missed out on him at that price…but if we could have had him on the same money for 5 years I would have jumped at it. I don’t think you can overate solid d and OBP…Choo does it year in and year out.

    • Tim

      You would give choo 26mil a year?

      • Mark

        I think he meant average annual pay.

        • preacherman86

          Yeh Mark, I was implying AAV…sorry for the confusion

  • gocatsgo2003

    Boras fail.

  • Eternal Pessimist

    Soooooo glad the Cubs dodged the “need to make a splash” urge and didn’t get Choo. He was probably one of the off-season signings that made the least sense to me. His talent window didn’t match the Cubs window at all, and his contract would be difficult to flip at the moment you would really want to flip it.

    On the other hand, I would like to have Garza back on a 3 year, flippable contact to make the Cubs more watchable early next year, and possibly flipping him, along w/ Shark, midseason 2014.

    • BlameHendry

      umm… so we flip Garza in his final contract year, sign him to another deal in the offseason, and then flip him again next season? You really think any player would agree to a deal with a team they knew was planning to do that? It’s rare enough for a July-traded player to re-sign with the team that sent him off, let alone when they know they will probably do it again the next season.

      I’d love Garza back but there’s no way he’s interested in returning.

      • Eternal Pessimist

        You are probably right, but he has an injury history (as do so many pitchers) and may not be able to get the longer term contract he wants due to his injury history. He might be worth a little extra money for a shorter “prove you’re healthy” contact.

        In any event, I think he will get a short term contract that would fit the Cubs needs better, though another team with a better chance of success may fit his needs. I’m really talking about what would be good for the Cubs, rather that what the player would want.

  • Caryatid62

    As joe Sheehan said, you don’t get awarded for wins/$. You get awarded for wins. Good for Texas.

    • mjhurdle

      While I understand the sentiment, that is a ridiculous statement by Sheehan.
      Of course only wins count, but no one ever disputes a move by saying “that makes our $$/wins too expensive. i only want our wins to cost $x/win”
      If Sheehan really believed that, then he would have to be just as approving of a team signing a 1 WAR player to a $25 million a year deal as he would this, because that player gives the team 1 more win, and you don’t get awarded for wins/$, just wins. So a $25 million dollar, 1 WAR player is a great signing.

      • caryatid62

        It was hyperbolic, and really not worth arguing over the specific merits of the language. The sentiment was all that mattered.

        He was criticizing what he sees as some modern fans’ odd obsession with accounting, rather than performance. While the greatest benefit of Moneyball has been an increased willingness, among fans, to understand advance metrics, the biggest downside to the book/movie has been the casual fans’ desire to root for “great deals,” rather than “great players.”

        Major league teams have done an impressive job in convincing fans that in order to be a “smart fan,” you have to root for the team to reduce costs. It’s a win-win for them.

        • mjhurdle

          “He was criticizing what he sees as some modern fans’ odd obsession with accounting, rather than performance. ”

          Maybe, but then he did it in a very poor way in my opinion.
          What he said was meaningless. I seriously doubt that he even believes it, but it sounds nice to throw out there and pretend like somehow he understands more than the average joe.
          Performance is intricately linked to accounting and cost.
          What is a great performance from a 1 million a year player is horrible from a 18 million dollar player.
          my opinion is that “you only get credit for wins” is ridiculous logic to use when supporting a team signing a huge $$$$ star. Every single player is judged by both their own performance and the cost to a team.
          To act like somehow fans are missing it because they don’t like the idea of signing players to huge money for long years is silly.
          I would add that if the best support Sheehan could muster for signing Choo is that teams get credit for wins and not wins/$$$, then he has a very poor argument.

          • Kyle

            They may be judged by both wins and financial efficiency, but those two factors are not weighted equally in the judging. Or at least they shouldn’t be.

            • mjhurdle

              i agree it isn’t a simple 50/50 split. Where exactly that divide lies is a matter of opinion that can be debated.
              Again, the idea is not that signing Choo was horrible, or that every big money signing is good/bad.
              I just disagree with Sheehan’s statement about it not being about Wins/$$. I can’t agree with that because I would not give a 1 WAR player $35 million a year to make my team better, whereas if Sheehan really believes what he said, he would have no problem with a team giving Theriot $35 million a year if that resulted in 1 extra win a year.

            • caryatid62

              Nor do fans have any reason to judge the financial efficiency of the team, especially in a non-capped sport.

              A fan’s role in sports is to root for his/her team. He/she should want the most possible wins.

              To a fan, a 1 WAR player is a 1 WAR player, regardless of their cost to the team.

              We can discuss the future opportunity costs in signing an $18 mil/year player, but that’s only if we know (a) the team’s current budget, (b) the likelihood that this budget is fair and reasonable (i.e. achieving profits, but not excessively), and (c) the likely future budget of the team based upon reasonable factors.

              Given that none of those three things are knowable by any fan, this is already problematic.

              But that’s not all.

              Then, we’d have to know that the costs saved by acquiring the cheaper player would allow the team to spend on other quality players and that the costs saved would not simply be put back into profits. If the projected payroll is $100 million, for example, saving $8 million by choosing one player over the other is meaningless if it means the payroll would then be reduced to $92 million anyway.

              There are obviously extreme examples (like the $1 mil versus $25 mil hypothetical posed earlier), however, most of the choices made by GMs are not a $1 mil/year player versus a $25 mil/year player. And we, as fans, have so little financial information that we are essentially 99% ignorant about the realities of any FA signing.

              • bbmoney

                Opportunity costs are important. Owners don’t spend limitless funds even with no cap

                • Caryatid62

                  Except we have no idea what that individual cap is for each team, and therefore we have no idea whether or not the cost savings are worthwhile.

              • Rebuilding

                “Nor do fans have any reason to judge the financial efficiency of the team, especially in a non-capped sport.

                A fan’s role in sports is to root for his/her team. He/she should want the most possible wins.”

                Speak for yourself

                • Caryatid62

                  You can argue against it all you want, but that’s your role.

                  • Rebuilding

                    As a fan that might be part of my “role”, but another part is to spend my money and my eyeball time on the team. If the Cubs (or any other team) didnt have some financial constraints then your premise would be correct. But since that is a fantasy, efficiency with the $ is something every fan should be concerned about

                    • Caryatid62

                      Not really. You have no impact on it regardless, nor do you have any idea what the amount that is too much to spend actually is.

                      Obsession with payroll and “flexibility” and “efficiency” is pretty much just neointellectual fandom.

                    • Rebuilding

                      Do you think FOs and managers have not been fired for fans staying away? Wins and $ efficiency are inextricably linked because we know all teams have some financial limit

                    • Caryatid62

                      Those two sentences have nothing to do with one another. Yes, people have been fired because fans have stayed away. Fans don’t stay away because a team isn’t winning efficiently enough.

                      There are so many factors (many of which I outlined earlier in this thread) that impact whether or not a team is or is not efficient, and fans don’t know anything about most of them.

                    • Rebuilding

                      You just don’t get the point. Wins are directly affected by efficiency. You can say there is no cap, but every team has a cap whether we know what it is or not. The more efficient within that cap the more wins. Therefore, efficiency is important

                    • Caryatid62

                      I get your point. It’s just wrong.

                      The existence of a cap and our ability to know what it is are two different things. Just because the cap exists doesn’t mean (a) we can know what it is, and (b) we can know what it will be.

                    • Rebuilding

                      I don’t think I’m the one that’s wrong here at all. I said the number on the cap is relatively unimportant, but that we know there is one at all is important. By your logic we should never talk about the terms of any contract because as fans all that matters is that .1 more will be put up.

                      So if George Kottaras is the best backup C we can sign then I shouldn’t worry if we sign him for 10 years $500 million? Because I’m just a fan worried about efficiency?

                    • Caryatid62

                      If all that matters is that there’s a cap, then you still have no idea what is and what is not efficient, as we can only judge what is efficient based upon the total dollars in the budget. If the rangers believe that they’ll have a $225 million payroll in 6 years, Choo becomes more efficient than we think. The point is that we have no idea what their budget is or will be, and as such, discussing efficiency is neointellectual mental masturbation.

                      As far as the Kottaras example, read what I wrote earlier about the difference between a 1 million player and a 25 million player. I’m not going to bother to repeat it.

                    • Rebuilding

                      I’ll keep it simple so you can understand the point – any time something is limited ($) efficiency is important. We have a very good idea what is efficient because if you add up all WAR it equals $6 million right now. 5 years from now that might be $7 million and teams take that into account.

                    • Caryatid62

                      Feel free to “keep it simple.” It’s still unknowable by a fan.

                      Movin on…

                    • Rebuilding

                      *Sigh* Ok, so I assume we won’t see you on any threads discussing what a good contract would be for a guy since there is no way to know

    • Rebuilding

      Since dollars are a limited resource that is a ridiculous statement by Sheehan. Wins per $ is important to most fans because most fans realize their team will only spend X amount of dollars (budget). By that logic why didnt someone offer Choo $50 mil a year for an extra win. Sheehan loves to say things like this to show how much more sophisticated he is than the “average fan”

      • Kyle

        Dollars are finite resources, but they aren’t the *only* finite resource.

        Fans have become enamored of financial efficiency and thus become myopic on the issue.

        • Rebuilding

          Really? Because I think that’s about 5% of fans. Most fans are casual who have no idea nor care what the payroll is. But knowledgeable Cubs fans rightfully care about efficiency since we have debt covenants that restrain payroll. Every guy you sign is another guy(s) you can’t sign

      • Caryatid62

        Once again, fans have no idea what that budget (“x”) is, nor if that x is a specific number that won’t fluctuate.

        You can be concerned with amount paid in free agency, but remember that you have virtually no knowledge of the relative importance of those dollars spent, because you know nothing about the current team budget other than what ownership tells you. Furthermore, the team doesn’t even know that much about future budgets other than what their actuaries believe based upon projections that may or may not come true.

        • Rebuilding

          You miss the point. The point isn’t what X is, it’s the fact that there is an X. As a Texas fan should I not worry that in a few years they might be an 81 win team, completely maxed out on payroll and looking at a Cubs style rebuilding?

          • Caryatid62

            You could also be worried that the sky might fall tomorrow, because you have as much knowledge about whether or not that it is going to happen as you do about tema finances and restraints.

            • Rebuilding

              Ughhhh no. I bet between the two of us we could determine what the Cubs max payroll could be within about $10 million. Should I have cheered if the Cubs signed Choo for $30 mil a year since it meant 1-2 more wins? No, because I would know that it would keep us from signing other players now and later

              • Caryatid62

                I bet you a million dollars we couldn’t.

                We literally have no idea what they can and can’t spend, and any thought that we might be able to piece it together is wishful thinking.

                • Rebuilding

                  No. It’s pretty easy to figure out. We know what their revenue is for instance so that is a cap no matter what. Also, we know that they said $140 million is unsustainable. We also know they spent $107 million last year. So we know it is somewhere between $107-140 million. So I’ll guess $120 would be the max right now. Bet you $1 million I’m close

                  There is no salary cap, true, but every team is capped somewhere. We can also piece together what the total cap is in all of baseball because 1WAR = $6 million. Add up all of the WAR in baseball and that is MLBs soft cap which will be adjusted when WAR equals more.

                  • Caryatid62

                    None of those things are true. They said 149 wasn’t sustanable five years ago. We don’t know what they think is sustainable today. We also don’t know whether or not they believe $107 mil is sustainable; just because they spent it in one year doesn’t mean it’s sustainable for the long-term. Maybe they can’t really go over 100, and they were stretched last year. Maybe they felt that there wasn’t anything worth spending on last year, and could have gone to 150 if they’d wanted to. We just. Don’t. Know.

                    You can guess $120 million, but it’s an ignorant guess. Just as any guess I would make would be equally ignorant.

                    • Rebuilding

                      I think it’s pretty accurate based on the information we have. That said, all that’s really important is that there is a limit. As I said below then we should cheer if the Cubs would have signed Choo or even Kottaras to 10 years $500 million because efficiency doesn’t matter, just 1 more WAR

                  • Caryatid62

                    “Based on the information we have.”

                    The whole point is that we don’t have enough information, yet we claim to be “smart fans” because we think we do.

                    • Eternal Pessimist

                      Caryatid, your position has a trollish quality…since you don’t know what the owners salary cap is you should just assume it is limitless. No we don’t know what they can/will spend, but it doesn’t take a genius to know their is a general limit, and a bad contract today will be followed with a spending limitation later when the cash could be better spent.

  • Toddleevon

    Wonder if Choo is having second thoughts about turning down the Yankees 7 yrs 140 million dollar offer. He is a player I can root for though, with the Rangers. I would’nt have been able to,as a Yankee.

    • Justin

      I don’t have the math in front of me, but with the tax situation in Texas Choo may actually come out ahead with $130 million in Texas vs. $140 million in New York because of the income tax situation..

      • Toddleevon

        Thanks, I just read the same thing somewhere else. I’d take the Rangers over the Yankees too.

      • Good Captain

        Not to mention the cost of living in NYC particularly is significantly more expensive.

  • BlameHendry

    $18.57M AAV is very reasonable. 7 years is not. I’d be pissed if Choo accepted a 5 year/$90-95m deal with another team, and we missed out on that. But on this contract he’ll be making $18.57m when he’s 38, which will be pretty stupid.

    Now lets go out and nab Tanaka. We could give him a 10-year deal and he would STILL probably be worth his salary in the 10th year, being just 35 years old. In fact with the way contracts inflate, $20M a year 10 years from now will probably be a bargain.

    • Austin5596

      Just spitballing here regarding Tanaka:
      I think a 10 yr/ $200 million contract with some sort of team (or maybe mutual, which is probably what his agent will want) opt-out clause after about the 5th year or so would actually work great. Large AAV and long-term deal to intice him to sign & an opt-out for Cubs in case he ends up a bust, along with the aforementioned inflation that could make the deal a steal by its end!

      • Scotti

        He won’t sign for ten unless there is a “player only” opt out (similar to the CC Sabathia deal).

  • NorthSideIrish

    With no state tax in Texas, this deal is worth more money than the deal he turned down with the Yankees.

    The big question is whether Choo or Fielder will be the DH in 2017? Maybe a $40M platoon?Once again shows the disadvantage NL teams have in signing big FA deals when they’re playing by different rules. Though the last few years I’ve actually been fairly thankful for that…

  • arta

    everyone hits in “Rangers Ballpark”.

  • Tommy

    Let’s face it, the economics of baseball have changed. I think Shark holding out the way he has is probably the right move financially for him. Seeing things like this just points to the money that he can reel in once he hits free agency.

    • Canadian Cubs Fan

      I totally get what you’re saying, but doesn’t it sound absurd that he would “need more money” or that Choo would deal with a more expensive cost of living in NYC than Texas? They’ll all have millions no matter what!

      Sometimes it baffles me when these things are said with all sincerity. And believe me, I say the same things. But at what point do some of these guys pick a place they think would make a great home over the highest offer? It just never seems to happen, except maybe with Cliff Lee going back to the Phillies instead of NY or Texas.

      I know I sound ridiculous and naive, but pro athletes really do live in a different reality, don’t they?

  • cubsklm

    Brett, can you tell us how much money the Cubs have spent this offseason for all the new players?

    • Kyle

      About $8m

  • Chuyz

    On signing tanka ….
    20 mil signing bouns
    5 yrs 75/mil
    Put bouns against 2013 n 2014 payroll
    That’s a done deal!

  • diamonddon

    Texas over paid for Choo! Unbelievable contract for a player with those stats. I’m happy Cubs stayed away.

    • SenorGato

      To be fair, substitute Choo for any other FA name ever and you have the same fan reaction.

  • johnny chess Aka 2much2say

    Although Choo was a short term fit 7 yrs is way too long. Money better spent on need rather than want. The Cubs need an Ace, by trade or buy. Shark, Ejax, Wood, ?, ??. Garza, Price, Tanaka or trust the Minor’s. Either extend Shark and trade for Price or Go hard after Tanaka and fallback on Garza (cost only money) while trading Shark for young arms. Tanaka, Garza/Shark Ejax, Wood, ?? In a 3 Team deal send Shark to Bluejays Tampa get Stroman Cubs get Price, and some mix of Vitters Vogelbach Jackson, Olt, Soler, Szczur and Bluejays add in Sanchez or 2 Top positional guys. Doled out as necessary.

    • aaronb

      Why would Tampa trade Price for that kind of return? I certainly couldn’t see them wanting less for him than what we want to Samjay.

      • johnny chess Aka 2much2say

        They would get alot of the position guys from both Cubs and Bluejays . Possibly Stroman Sanchez and their pick of position guys as well as the Bluejays getting their pick of mainly Cubs position players.

  • johnny chess Aka 2much2say

    How can you say Nelson Cruz’s power is legit? Only if he continues to cheat.

  • http://bleachernation.com woody

    So he took less money to play with Texas? Guess he didn’t like the Yankees money. Or did Boras miscalculate?

    • spearman

      Taxes may be a factor. Check it out.

  • Fastball

    We probably didn’t need Choo at this point. But we might as well get used to the fact that when Theo is allowed to purchase good free agents (not scrap pile free agents) it’s going to cost Choo money at a minimum. The prices keep going up every year so 2 years from now that Choo type deal is going from $18.5MM to $22MM or more. That is what the market is and that’s what these not gonna be hall of famers are getting. If people think we can get really good players via FA for less they are crazy. I don’t know if spending now makes any sense but you have to wonder what will be available to us when the time comes. Many of the good players are getting long term extensions at 24 – 27 preventing them from hitting FA when we will be looking for talent. I can see where Theo will have $75MM invested in just 3 – 4 free agents when the time comes. Ricketts had better hope damned near all of these prospects make it and are really good. In 2015 he is going to have field a real baseball team or Cubs fans of all types will be so pissed Wrigley will look like a Tampa Rays home game.

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+