giancarlo stantonWe have a bed delivery scheduled for today, and our window overlaps horribly with the Jon Lester press conference (1pm CT). I just know that they’re going to show up in the first five minutes of the press conference, and I’m going to have to be a total jerk and just say, “Put it over there!” and sprint back to my computer.

Did you miss any of the news and rumors this weekend, by the way? I did a catch-up earlier this morning.

  • To be sure, when the Marlins signed Giancarlo Stanton to a very un-Marlin-like $325 million extension, they legitimately put themselves on the hook for $325 million. Should Stanton want to collect it, they cannot get out of it (though I wouldn’t put it past them to try some shenanigans). But when it was revealed that Stanton’s deal was extremely light in the early years, and he had an opt-out after six seasons, folks got a little suspicious that there was an angle here that was the Marlins bein’ the Marlins. Sure enough: “[The Marlins] thought it was a great deal. I just couldn’t get my head around the $325 million. They said to me, ‘You don’t understand. [Stanton] has an out clause after six years. Those first six years are only going to cost $107 million. After that, he’ll leave and play for somebody else. So, it’s not really $325 million.’” That quote comes from Pirates president Frank Coonelly, by way of Rob Biertempfel. Whatever you think of the contract, and understanding that, if Stanton underperforms, he’ll collect all of that $325 from the Marlins, there’s something that seems very … Marlins-like about signing that deal, and then telling folks that they figured out a way to get Stanton’s prime years for just $107 million.
  • At BP, Jeff Quinton takes an interesting look at how teams are considering free agent signings vis a vis the cost of draft pick compensation. Specifically, Quinton’s analysis suggests – nothing can be conclusive at this point – that qualified free agents go overwhelmingly to teams who picked up a compensatory draft pick in the same offseason (thus they don’t quite lose a draft pick, they just fall down from their spot in the first round to their spot in the compensatory round after the first round). To the extent the player is not signed by that kind of team, then they go overwhelmingly to teams that have a protected first round pick or that had multiple first round picks the previous year. This is all somewhat intuitive, but it’s a reminder that teams do think about the impact of the lost pick when they go about their signings.*


  • *(This all squares with two things I’ve said a fair bit this offseason: (1) the loss of a second round pick to sign a qualified (i.e. top) free agent is really not a big deal; and (2) if the Cubs want to sign a qualified free agent next offseason, it would probably help them feel comfortable in doing so if they also had an outgoing free agent to whom they made a qualifying offer (thus, a little extra interest in acquiring a guy who is a free agent after 2015, like a Justin Upton or a Jordan Zimmermann, etc.).)
  • People forget that MLB Advanced Media – owned by all MLB teams in equal shares – as a company was a pioneer in online streaming technology, and they’re damn good at it. Thus, when HBO was looking for a way to handle their own standalone streaming product planned for next year, they partnered with MLBAM to use MLBAM’s technology to handle the streaming. So, when you’re watching the next season of ‘True Detective’ on your tablet, remember that the Cubs are kinda, sorta in there.
  • This is pretty awesome:

  • Javy Baez went deep yesterday in Puerto Rico, and he also slapped a double. And … yeah, he struck out twice.
  • A collection and comparison of the moves on the North and South side so far this offseason. Kudos to the author for not forgetting that adding Joe Maddon is among the Cubs’ significant transactions this offseason. With all the Lester-related buzz, it seems like folks are forgetting that one.
  • Miscellaneous reminder to click that “like” button right there:




Keep Reading BN ...

« | »