Jump to content

Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:

Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:

Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today


Missing Darvish

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 TWC



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I know that we don't have a concise set of facts on this -- but my understanding of the Darvish sweepstakes is that a half-dozen or so teams submitted bids, all of them were clustered in the mid-$20m range (with the Cubs leading that pack) with the exception of the $50m-ish Rangers offer. Is this accurate?

So when the gloom-and-doom posse comes circling, complaining that we whiffed on Darvish, they're upset because the Cubs didn't blow away the pack by increasing the consensus bid by another 80% or so?

#2 MichiganGoat


    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,798 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:38 AM

I don't think any of the losing bids are known but I think the narrative is that the Rangers surprised everyone by 10M+

So yes it's silly to be upset that the Cubs didn't bid 55M.

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo

#3 Spencer


    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:12 PM

Yeah, I'm not really at all upset the Cubs didn't make a $100M investment.

#4 Brett



  • Administrators
  • 3,638 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:28 PM

Your recollection, and interpretation thereof, is as likely correct as any other theory, TWC. (I'm told only that the Cubs' bid was sufficiently high that they thought they had a good chance - so, I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn theirs was the next highest after the Rangers).

The thing everyone forgets: there were rumors coming out of Japan that Darvish would be very UNLIKELY to sign if his posting fee was extraordinarily high, because he thinks the posting system is unfair. That could explain why so many teams bid in the low $20M range. They were trying to be the highest, without being insanely high.

#5 Cyranojoe


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

I never saw anything indicating the Cubs were the next-best bid, but that's a nice idea to ponder.

#6 Luke


    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 08 March 2012 - 04:00 PM

I know Toronto was frequently talked about as having a very high bid, but I think the only number that ever came out for sure was the Texas winning bid.

Had Darvish hit the free agent market outright instead of passing through that ridiculous posting system, I think the Cubs would have had a great shot at him. But I can't blame a team for losing in a single round blind competitive bid process no matter what the final bid amounts are. Whether the Cubs finished first or last, they put in a bid they thought would win.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).