Series Internetz-view: Cubs vs Reds 4/18/14 - 4/20/14
miggy80 - Apr 18 2014 10:05 AM
Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:
Bleacher Nation Posts
- Pre-Gamin’: Reds v. Cubs (1:20 CT) – Lineups, Broadcast Info, etc.
Today, 10:25 AM
- This Week In The Minors: (Very) Early Storylines
Today, 09:10 AM
- Mike Olt Showing Off His Power and Other Bullets
Today, 08:05 AM
- God’s Benevolence Watch: Javier Baez Could Be Back Today (UPDATE: He Is!)
Today, 07:15 AM
- Enhanced Box Score: Reds 4, Cubs 8 – April 19, 2014
Yesterday, 03:59 PM
Upcoming Calendar Events
Cespedes/Darvish & why was Dejesus/Maholm signed?
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:57 AM
Instead for 10M per year; a mere 11M less; we get Maholm (ERA over 8) plus Dejesus; he over 30 and no power. The question is why?
Granted, Cespedes and Darvish would not help the Cubs to the playoffs in 2012; however would be 2 building blocks to go along with Castro-BJax-Rizzo-Lahair-Garza-Smardz-W Catillo-Vitters for 2013 and beyond.
Why did Theo short change his offers; Cespedes already said he would of come to Cubs if the deal had been for 4 yrs not 6 yrs since they scouted him the most & the Cubs will contend sooner than the A's & Darvish had NO control over who he had to sign with.........
SO, who ordered payroll 40M lower since Ricketts took over?
It's still April; but those 2 would look good in pinstripes and both were alot easier to sign then a Fielder or Pujols and lot less years. (not to mention the marketing opportunities both would of presented for the Cuban and Japanese population).
Those look like 2 BIG misses already by team Theo.
Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:27 AM
- It's a great day for a ballgame, LET'S PLAY TWO!
Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:38 AM
Exactly, Ricketts had no idea the Rangers would bid that high and I'm confident that our bid was #2 or #3 and it made no sense to sign Cedoedes for 4 years and then either lose him or be forced to sign him for a monster contract once the Cubs were competative. It would be great to have them right now but it's early and the MLB hasn't had a chance to adapt and find the weakness in them both. Let's revisit this at the end of the season.
For Cespedes it was about the number of years of control; w/ Darvish it was a blind bid so everyone was blown out of the water by the bid the Rangers put in. Noone else was even close to the $60M that it took just to get his rights from his Japanese club.
Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:43 PM
MG is right, it is far to early to annoit these guys as anything more than a curiosity. This time last year Sam Fuld was tearing the cover off the ball...
Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:22 PM
Feel like it's fair to add that it's still April, in their first year of playing in the bigs. Each could continue to be awesome, but they could just as easily flame out within a month.
One can only hope! Personally, I thought Cespedes was getting a lot of undeserved attention, and was amazed at the contract that he received.. was even a little relieved that the Cubs didn't get "stuck" with another huge, long-term contract. However, SO FAR (yeah, you're right Brett, it's still early), he looks like he is worth ever cent, and then some. Hopefully this isn't one of those "DOH!" moments that us Cubs fans will continue to chew on for years to come.
Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:31 AM
The other angle to consider is that the Cubs may have change modes had they gotten Darvish. As as been pointed out, it was a closed bid auction. Had they won rights to Darvish, guys like Fielder for example were still yet unsigned. With Garza, Dempster and Darvish atop the rotation, perhaps the focus would have been less on stockpiling guys with a higher upside in an effort to save money and gain prospects. As it is, the emphasis has been to replenish the farm system, lighten the payroll load and begin the rebuilding process.
Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:32 PM
As it is, the emphasis has been to replenish the farm system, lighten the payroll load and begin the
"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy
"Ow" - Dylan Bundy
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).