Quantcast

jeff samardzija gatorade showerThe Chicago Cubs and Jeff Samardzija have agreed on a deal for 2014, during which Samardzija will make $5.345 million in his second year of arbitration. He remains under team control through 2015.

The $5.345 million figure is just about the midpoint between the $6.2 million Samardzija requested and the $4.4 million the Cubs offered, with a slight edge to Samardzija’s number. Call it the “good will” bump. The agreement avoids Monday’s arbitration hearing, which is never a fun thing for a team and a player to engage in.

With Samardzija officially in the fold, the Cubs have signed deals with all of their arbitration-eligible players. They’ll now turn their attention to Spring Training and the attendant possibility of a waiver pickup, a minor trade (they still have to clear a spot on the 40-man for Jason Hammel), or the slim chance of dealing Samardzija before the start of the season. A long-term extension for Samardzija, for now, seems not to be in the cards.

  • 5412

    Hi,

    Why are you sure a long term might not be in the cards? They could be in the middle of some serious negotiations and agreed to this number just to get past the deadline.

    If Samardzija starts out the season lights out, or flops badly, it could cause one side to change their position also.

    The reason I say that is this. Neither side is sniping in the press which hopefully signals that it is still an amicable relationship. They both may have agreed to see how things play our and set a date to revisit an extension.

    Now that is a lot of wishful thinking but I don’t think either side has burned their bridge or gone past the point of no return just yet.

    Hope not anyway.

    Regards,
    5412

    • EvenBetterNewsV2.0

      Really no incentive to sign a deal now. He has his pay figured out for this year. He will only be one year away from FA with the probability of getting a decent bump and he has already made good money. Very little incentive for Shark to sign an extension now. He isn’t giving a discount. We aren’t overpaying. Status quo

      • 5412

        Hi,

        I can think of about 50 million guaranteed reasons for him to sign now.

        All he has to do is talk to Mark Prior.

        regards,
        5412

        • EvenBetterNewsV2.0

          Um, Shark has made more than Mark Prior. Completely different contracts. Completely different situations. $50 million in this market would be a terrible contract for him. I would be shocked if he wanted $60, the Cubs wouldn’t give it to him to get it over with.

          • 5412

            Hi,

            My point is Samardzija has life changing wealth available. Unless he is heavily insured, he is taking a heck of a risk.

            Regards,
            5412

            • EvenBetterNewsV2.0

              He already has life changing wealth. I have never heard of an athlete so completely consumed by concern, they are willing to take what they feel is a huge pay cut just to sign a contract. I would honestly laugh if I heard the presser for an athlete if they said, “I felt it was best to take what the team wanted to give me, even if it was a pay cut. In the end, I may be in my prime, but I am risking injury by not taking what is in the best interest of the team. Therefore, I probably risked a lot of money on the open market, but now if I get injured, I have that paper.” Lol, that was actually more fun to write than I thought. I can only hope someone as competitive as Shark would say that so I can completely lose all respect for that player.

              • Eternal Pessimist

                ‘they are willing to take what they feel is a huge pay cut just to sign a contract’

                Signing off to a team friendly contract now is equivalent to signing a higher contract later and buying an EXPENSIVE insurance policy for the risk of career ending injury…maybe the net of the higher contract later – the insurance policy would better then the lower contract today, but you are dismissing the risk, and maybe he is so sure he won’t get injured so he doesn’t buy that type of catastrophic policy.

                You assume he will make through the next 6 months or 1 year or 2 years (however long it takes to get the contract he wants) without risking all or much of the future value of the contract signed today.

                I would guess the money matters to him…it matters to just about everyone (what percentage of FA’s give a significant home-town discount? just about none). Just because he has a bloated bank account doesn’t mean he doesn’t want an even more bloated account.

                • brainiac

                  i think some players are willing to take market value or submarket value if there’s glory and loyalty attached. think joey votto, who got an enormous deal that was actually very smart for the reds.

                  in the cubs’ case, he knows something that we don’t, and that’s the plan for the team, which is dire, and direr. he’s willing to take some security with the team, since chicago is a great city, but they’ll have to pay market value if he’s going to have to suffer through administrative cynicism/incompetence, depending on how you see it.

                  • brainiac

                    the very public disparaging in the media, by the cubs, of who amounts to be their #1 pitcher, doesn’t help their negotiations. i can imagine the back room meeting where they thought if they embarrassed him that he might cave, but that’s now middle management mentality looks at things.

                • EvenBetterNewsV2.0

                  Yes, I would be willing to take my chances at his age, mileage, and makeup that he has more of a chance to be healthy than the next guy. I guarantee he is not in the least worried about getting hurt. He hasn’t had arm trouble. He is close to 30. Typically guys that have arm troubles have them when they are young, or overused. He is neither. I would agree that money matters to him, and that is why he has not signed what the Cubs have offered him yet. He feels he is worth more, which is the only thing that matters at this point. To say he should just take $50 million, because he could get injured in the next 2 years is nuts. Would we honestly say that for any pitcher on any other team if they were 2 years away from FA, and put up the same numbers as Shark? This conversation is just fans being hopeful, because he is a Cub.

    • FFP

      I’m with you, 5412, for the second half of your post. The reasons to be optimistic you cite are good ones, especially the not “sniping” in the press part. Also, the fact that they didn’t go through the arb process means sniping wasn’t dictated in private either, as Brett noted. (It is such a demoralizing process.)

      You had lost me at first when you asked “Why are you sure a long term might not be in the cards? ” I had to go back and read again. (I guess your “sure” and “might” sort of cancel each other out. Brett’s “for now” and “seem” are both in that “might” camp.) But, like you I’m hopeful. Just seems like good business decisions on all sides. That’s good.
      We’re pleased but not surprised. Has this regime gone to arb with anyone? And Shark never doubts his own prowess and ability to improve. I like a player who trusts himself.

  • http://www.ehanauer.com clark addison

    Samardzija is obviously confident he’s going to have a big year. The Cubs are in a wait and see mode. It’s best for both parties.

    • YourResidentJag

      Couldn’t disagree more.

  • Cubbie Tim

    Can’t believe Mahom signed for$1.25 w/LA. He would’ve been nice for the cubs

    • YourResidentJag

      You may see this with Jimenez and Santana as well. If Santana can be had for 3-4 years, why not?

      • DocPeterWimsey

        Because Santana actually is not very good?

        • hansman

          Not very good is a stretch. I’d put him in the same realm as Edwin Jackson. Peripherals are less than Samardzija’s and he has pitched a ton of innings in his career. His contract demands are way too high but he’d slot nicely behind Samardiza, Wood, Jackson.

          • SenorGato

            OTOH Jackson is bigger, throws harder, has never been injured…I would put money on Jackson holding up better than Santana over the next three years.

            I couldn’t possibly want less to do with Santana. I don’t think hes that good. Jackson’s supposedly disastrous season in 2013 is a whole 3 fWAR better than Santana’s actually disastrous 2012. Hes a less volatile talent and that is worth its weight in gold in this context (shopping for mediocre low 30s RHs in FA).

            Plus this rotation could really go without adding another RH with mediocre stuff. Power arms please…especially if its RHSP.

        • YourResidentJag

          Well, hansman stole my response. We signed Edwin Jackson? I suppose you think REAL HIGHLY of him. ;)

          • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

            Just some stats on Santana
            2012: 18.9% HR/FB ratio….4th highest among 186 guys that tossed 50 innings as starters.
            2013: 12.4%.

            2012: 69.8% LOB
            2013: 76.8% LOB

            2012: 3.08BB/9
            2013: 2.18BB/9

            2012: 43.2% GB
            2103 46.2% GB (and has changed significantly since 2008.)

            Overall, Santana hasn’t been great, but he has more to hang his hat on the Shark does. Certainly, the resume is deeper. And he has been reliable for 30 starts four years straight. 2012 was an anomaly.

            The velocity has held up too…I think IF you could get him for Kazmir money, you’d at least look at doing that, under competitive circumstances. So, no for the Cubs.

            At an 85.7M payroll for 20 players (with Soler in that, Cots Contracts) I think we’ve seen all the FA will add.

            [img]http://www.fangraphs.com/fgraphs/3200_P_FA_20130925.png[/img]

            • YourResidentJag

              So, basically the Orioles should hop on that right away.

              • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

                I’d say if they feel they can hold a $95M payroll, they have room. But, they have 8 Arb 3 guys in 2015…Chris Davis the big one. They likely need to flip asset(s) to see there way out.

                I think they are holding out until they can get an value-priced SP for a 1-2 year deal, figuring later it will come down to more bodies vs. available 25-roster spots.

                Santana just maybe too rich for their blood + with the pick loss, but the value of that pick (17th) is pretty small….

                But they are like the Cubs.

                The Orioles have some of the same problems: tough division of 3 opponents with better rosters(Red Sox), deeper pockets, or a system that has been both good and lucky (Tampa).

                Orioles do have a young roster – but Markakis has to produce big in 2014, Davis has to stay monster like, and pitching has to do it…so they either pay or do a rain dance for luck….

                They need to stay away from Capuano-like guys…recipe for another 3rd place team.
                http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/02/orioles-talking-with-saunders-capuano.html

        • davidalanu

          Three of the last four years, he’s been worth about 2 wins per fangraphs. 2012 was vomit-worthy. So, at 1.5 wins/year over the last four, that supposedly equates to about $9 million a year these days.

    • VittersStartingLF

      I can’t believe a lot of teams in need of a starter didn’t sign Maholm for that. He is a solid 4-5 starter for most teams.

      • hansman

        Eh, he has a fairly significant injury history and the Braves left him off their playoff roster because of injury.

        Even then, he wasn’t that 4-5 starterish last year. Posted an 88 ERA+.

      • Kyle

        Best. Username. Evah.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Up to $5 million in incentives – tells me they start kicking in pretty early if he’s making consistent starts. If he’s in the rotation, he’s going to make a lot more than $1.5 million.

      • Eternal Pessimist

        That sounds like the kind of contract Baker should have been offered in 2013. Granted he might not have taken it, and he had more upside. But he had a more serious injury history and much lowere downside. Live and learn.

  • Ivy Walls

    Samardz will cost whomever has him about $13M for two years prior to FA, he is going for FA because he will be 31. As for him he will cash about $17.3M since college, and est $25M after college, good for him.

    I don’t think he reports with catchers with the Cubs.

    • Patrick G

      Really? They report in less than a week

    • davidalanu

      Since college as opposed to after college? Huh? He just agreed to terms but won’t report? What?

  • http://bleachernation.com woody

    Samardzija seems to be sending mixed signals. He publicly states that he doesn’t like the “R” word and has said that he wants to play with a winner. Then in another interview he expresses his love of the area and the cubs and says he would love to stay here. Realisticly even if the youngsters are all on the opening day roster for 2015 I have to believe that it will take a year of big league experience before we could contend. And the FO has said with frequency that the negociations are amicable and cordial. Which leads me to wonder just what the snag really is? Is it only money? I remember Sharks comments after the Feldman trade implying that we should have held on to him. If this team is as bad as many think it will be then it is certain that there will be another sell off in July. If I were Theo and I couldn’t come to terms with Shark by the end of June I would definatley trade him.

  • Cubsin

    As I see it, two things need to happen by late July for Shark to sign an extension with the Cubs: (1) He has to pitch well more consistently than he did in 2013, and (2) his teammates and the top prospects need to perform well enough to persuade him that the Cubs’ future is bright.

    If he doesn’t pitch well, the Cubs will test the market, and will either trade him in July or bet he rebounds in the last two months and trade him in the offseason. If the Cubs are losing consistently, the prospects still look far away and the Cubs are selling off players again, they will probably accept their best offer for Shark in July rather than risk an injury.

  • bearsconnor6

    How do you guys feel Jason Hammel will pitch this year?

    • beerhelps

      Overhand

      sorry man, couldn’t help myself.

  • Diehardthefirst

    Shark has a dead arm after the 5th inning in most games- he’s one of most hittable in MLB thereafter – must stick in Theos craw that Cubs may be stuck with him all year

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      Eh… Shark got hit a lot in the 6th, but not much in the 7th or 8th. And he got hit worse in the 2nd than the 6th. I don’t think the statistics back up “one of most hittable in MLB” after the 5th. Just doesn’t seem to show up. If you have stats to suggest otherwise I’d love to see them. But it looks like Shark got nailed with fluky high BABIP in the 2nd and 6th. I can’t imagine why those two innings would jump out except random variation.

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=samarje01&year=2013&t=p#innng

      • Jason P

        The 6th inning is generally the cutoff when managers pull a pitcher if he’s struggling. In the 7th/8th, a reliever comes in at the first sign of trouble.

        Though that doesn’t explain the 2nd inning. As you said, probably random variation.

        • Eternal Pessimist

          They hung shark out a lot in the 7th inning when he clearly was getting hit too hard because he was still a better option than the many ‘great’ relievers on the bench – Camp, Marmol, etc.. – but he sure seemed to lose his swing and miss stuff by the 6th or 7th inning.

          • Diehardthefirst

            He’s a 5th on most teams- but an ACE on the Cubs which says it all- if Theo would accept this fact then call the Yankees who would gladly exchange some single A players plus pay entire salary so as to expand rotation and give Tanaka the 6 days off he’s accustomed to; its insurance against ruining huge Tanaka investment and helps Cubs restore sanity to its rebuilding

            • ssckelley

              So he is a 5th starter on most teams? There are 30 teams in MLB and “most” would be at least 16, so tell us which 16 teams Samardzija would only be a 5th starter.

              • Diehardthefirst

                All 16

                • ssckelley

                  Name the 16 teams, thanks.

                  • Diehardthefirst

                    http://www.rantsports.com/…/2014/…/power-ra...
                    look for yourself – would’ve replied earlier but would’ve missed my nap

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                      That’s a nice slideshow of rotations on a page featuring not one, but two embedded auto-playing video ads (seriously? two of them?), but I don’t see where in that slideshow you are finding 16 or more teams on which Samardzija would be the #5 starter.

                      Can you explain your thinking a little more clearly than just providing a semi-non-related link?

              • DocPeterWimsey

                If you go by xFIP weighted by innings pitched, then Shark is the #5 starter on the Tigers.

                He would have been #3 on the Mariners and Phillies, and #2 on the Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Indians, Marlins, Mets, Nationals, Pirates, Rangers, Rays, Reds, White Sox.

                This might be why people are paying much attention to him….

                • ssckelley

                  So the statement of “He’s a 5th on most teams” would be incorrect?

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

                    Dude it’s die hard correctness is a very fluid idea in his mind.

                  • DocPeterWimsey

                    Unless the Tigers are most teams (and last I counted, they were one of them), then, yes. Actually, it’s a testament to just how damn awesome the Tigers pitching was last year that they had 4 guys in the top 20-30 in raw pitching performance (depending on the criterion for ranking them).

                    It’s also a testament to just how bad their fielding was that the Tigers were not particularly awesome at preventing runs.

                • Diehardthefirst

                  Would have to disagree based on those power rankings I furnished earlier- IMHO he is 5th on those top 16 at least

                  • Drew7

                    Nothing like wrapping the weekend up with a healthy dose of Die-perbole.

                  • ssckelley

                    This has to be one of the dumbest claims you have ever made on here. Please tell me you are just trolling or trying to make a funny. Your claim that Samardzija would only be a 5th starter on those teams is so stupid that it is kinda funny.

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

                      Dude it’s die hard why does this keep surprising people? Read it as satire and it’s kinda fun.

                    • ssckelley

                      I’ve read a lot of his stuff but this one is over the top even for diehard. But you are right it is fun, I did get a laugh out of it.

              • brainiac

                I’m actually pretty bullish about his capacities to put in 200 innings with 200 strikeouts for the foreseeable future. He might allow some runs, but we’re talking about a guy tracked for an ERA in the high 3′s who can put in workhorse time.

                Tell me how the team wouldn’t benefit from keeping that, AND adding about 20 other needed players. These games over a few dollars here and there by the FO are putting us in a position where we basically have one of the worst rotations, the least middle of lineup support, and a faint glimmer of a prospect for some future talent to contribute at best. It’s such a mess. AROD time!

        • ClevelandCubsFan

          Late reply here. Agreed on 6th. But… Shark USUALLY made it to the 7th, and the BABIP was normal in the 7th. Also, if he were running out of gas in the 6th I’d expect a lot more balls put in play but not a substantially higher BABIP. This suggests to me that whatever weakness he had in the 6th was mostly random. None of the stats suggest diehard’s claims. But then, what’s new?

  • RITZ

    Like I said when Hammel signed, Shark will sign closer to $6m than the Cubs figure of $2.7M as Hammel just got $6m from the SAME team the Cubs,… as that signing does effect and reflect the market value for starting pitchers. The arbitrators read the same transactions page we do. If not Sharks gets coser to 2.76M,… BAM!

    Right-hander Jeff Samardzija and the Chicago agreed Saturday to a one-year deal worth $5,345,000. He had asked for $6.2 million and had been offered $2,765,000 by the Cubs after going 8-13 with a 4.34 ERA last year, when he made $2,765,000.

    • Patrick W.

      I don’t think you are reading that right.

      If you predicted that Samardzija would get closer to 6 million than 2.7 million I kind of feel like you’re cheating considering the Cubs offered him 4.4 million.

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      Yeah the Cubs offered way more than you think. Also the arbiters understand the difference between a free market free agent and a closed market arbitration eligible player.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      You should probably stop talking about arbitration-eligible players, because people have patiently explained arbitration salaries to you again and again, and you apparently refuse to read those explanations. Free agent contracts have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on arbitration salaries. But, since you’re not reading and processing this, I’ll just hope you stop talking about arbitration altogether (a safe bet, since they’re all settled now).

      Also, that $2.765 million offer is inaccurate. It was $4.4 million.

      • Eternal Pessimist

        …and who was the guy saying “why don’t the Cubs just meet Shark in the middle”. Guess this answers the question of who wasn’t willing to meet in the middle.

        I don’t object Shark going for all he can, as is his right, but I don’t think the Cubs have put themselves in better position to sign free agents or their own players any better or longer by giving them generous arb settlements.

        If we looked at the Cubs payments to all their arb players over the last few years I would wonder how much of an ‘extra’ bump the Cubs gave in order to play ‘nice’. Then you add on the multiplier as the bump increases the range you need to be in to sign them the following year. Any idea of what this might be costing them every year? An extra $5 – $10 million? Would be nice to save that money to attract a better FA.

  • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

    Your 2014 Chicago Cubs Opening Day Roster???
    1 Jeff Samardzija – ACE
    2 Edwin Jackson
    3 Travis Wood
    4 Jason Hammel
    5 Jake Arrieta
    6 LR/Spot Starter Carlos Villanueva
    7 James Russell L
    8 Welsey Wright L
    9 Pedro Strop
    10 Hector Rondon
    11 Justin Grimm
    12 Jose Veras
    —-
    13 Welington Castillo
    14 George Kottaras
    15 Anthony Rizzo
    16 Darwin Barney
    17 Starlin Castro
    18 Luis Valbuena
    19 Donnie Murphy
    20 Mike Olt —-his spring training will pretty much decide this, I figure. Suck. AAA bound.
    21 Junior Lake
    22 Ryan Sweeney
    23 Justin Ruggiano
    24 Nate Schierholtz
    25 (Mystery OF – Spring training)

    Who goes off the 40 man? Jackson? Logan Watkins? Vitters?

    That is one heck of a team…

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      Your subtle use of irony is truly a gift.

    • Jason P

      It think Parker will be in the bullpen and Grimm back in Iowa getting starts. It would be nice if Vitters or Jackson won the 5th outfielder spot instead of Darnell McDonald.

      Take Schierholtz and Hammel off this team after the trade deadline, and we may be staring 100 losses right in the face. Again.

  • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

    Well, you figure – 1-3 guys will likely land on the DL by June. Pitchers, more so than hitters, but we had the CF-of-the-week going for awhile in 2013. So, no doubt the roster will be fluid…I can see Parker – I think will see the shuttle from AAA pitching staffs to MLB used liberally.

    Soon to be eager talent from AAA???
    Hendricks
    Cabrera
    Alcantara
    Baez…
    …the list could go on.

  • Diehardthefirst

    If the Cubs add more speed to become aggressive on the bases this will go a long way towards scoring more runs- projected starting lineup lacks speed

  • bobdawg78

    I agree that Grimm is probably in AAA getting starts, and Parker is in the pen. I’m hoping Vitters makes it as our 5th OF. If Olt is able to hold down 3rd, then Valbuena should be the 2nd with Barney backing up 2nd and SS. As far as who we lose on the 40 man for Hammel, I’d rather see us make a small trade, than potentially lose someone for nothing. On that note, I’d want Barney traded for a PTBNL, thus opening a spot on the 40 man, and I’d like to see Cabrera thrown into the pen, because he’s out of options.

    If we suffer an injury to Castro or Valbuena, Murphy could fill in, and we could recall Watkins. Not an ideal situation, but having Murphy on the bench kind of makes Barney even less needed, if Olt starts at 3rd. By the trading deadline, I’d like to see anyone that isn’t a part of our future traded for what ever we can get, and start bringing up some of the kids to see what they got.

    • Eternal Pessimist

      I hope we never bring prospects up to see what they got and only bring them up when we know what they got, or when they’ve developed all they will in the minors, can offer something to the MLB team, and keeping them in the minors will just run out our control clock.

      • bobdawg78

        In a PERFECT world that would be the case, but sometimes players are brought up and they surprise you, or they show that they belong in the minors. Rusin and Raley are the last case to show you what I’m talking about. Rusin looks like he could be a LOOGY, or a back end starter, at worst he could be a cheap lefty in our bullpen.

        Lake was brought up last year, kind of a SEE WHAT WE HAVE player, and he showed he could be a piece of our future. Either way, he’s getting a starting spot this year because of last years call up. I say keep the ??? prospect kids coming up so we can see if we have a diamond in the rough, or if we just have a rough prospect. Either way, in a lost “non-playoff” season, there’s nothing to lose, and we might even lose more games, thus improving our draft position, and IF pool money.

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

          We have no international pool money this year we are limited because of the overspend they did last year. I think we can only spend 100K per player

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            $250K max per player. Still have a very big pool, though.

            • EvenBetterNewsV2.0

              Do you see us trading the pool money for high upside players (with questions) since we can’t spend in large clumps?

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                That was a suggestion I made last year when the Cubs started their IFA spending binge – so I hope so.

                • Kyle

                  If the Yankees do what they are rumored to do (drop $15m+ on IFAs), then I don’t think there will be any market for trading pool money.

                  Ironically, the Cubs’ strategy that created a situation where they don’t need their pool money is also devaluing pool money.

                  • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                    I’ve always said I think the value of a pool slot is pretty low, but even if the Yankees sign up $15 to $20 million of players (at inevitably inflated prices, given the strategy), there will still be a lot more spending to go around. Quite a few slots were traded this past year with the Rangers and Cubs eating up as much as the Yankees project to.

                    That said, a $2 million pool slot would be worth something to the Yankees, if no one else (i.e., it’d be worth $2 million in cash).

                  • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

                    The Cubs aren’t going to land Archie Bradley for anything but pool slot or anything of that nature, but there should be some value there.

                    A couple high ceiling, high risk A ball pitchers wouldn’t surprise me.

                    Or, not sure if the timing would work, swapping some IFA slot money for one of the handful of tradable picks in the draft. I doubt anyone with a tradable pick would go for it, but it’s a nice dream.

                    • Kyle

                      I don’t think the IFA slots are worth even the second-half of tradeable picks.

                      I mean, we won’t literally get nothing if we’re just giving them away. But I’d expect it to be less than we got for, say, Jeff Baker or Tony Campana.

                    • Brocktoon

                      The Cubs acquired ~785K last year from the Astros for Ron Torreyes. Torreyes didn’t crack our top 31 last year. There’s just not much value to it.

  • Ivy Walls

    I woke with thought that why the Cubs were so hard on $5.3M is that they have trade partner who was hard at $5.3, probably established by the thinking that all deals usually fall to the median of the proposals.

    I just can’t see to much gain having Samardz go to ST or opening day, let alone the All Star Break.

  • Pingback: Dicsussing Maholm and Hammel and Other Bullets | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

  • Diehardthefirst

    As that list shows Cubs are in bottom 5 of MLB even with the ACE— he sure didn’t move the dial much which is why I believe he’s gone before they break camp so 5 mil can be used better

    • DocPeterWimsey

      Wait, on what list was the Cubs starting rotation in the bottom 5 of MLB? If you go by ERA, then they were 15th. If you go by xFIP, then they were 19th: but with almost the same xFIP as they had ERA. Shark’s xFIP was quite a bit lower than his ERA was, which indicates that he had a lot more balls dropping than normal for most pitchers on a team that basically came out as only fractionally below average fielding-wise.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        Note: add small caveats about NL ERA’s and xFIPs not quite being comparable to AL ERA’s and xFIPs. Sip drink. Exhale. Sit down…

      • Diehardthefirst

        See above list for your answer – Cubs staff barely major league caliber

        • Sabermagician94

          Major league average and Major league caliber are two completely separate ideas. There’s a difference between a .500 team and the Houston Astros! The Cubs don’t have a great rotation, but to say that it’s barely major league caliber is a bit of a overreaction…

  • Pingback: Resumed Mariner Interest in Jeff Samardzija? Lingering Hope for an Extension? | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

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+