Diamondbacks interested in Samardzija
Buster Olney got the Samardzija trade train rolling with a tweet last week saying that the Cubs and D-Backs would keep talking about a Jeff Samardzija deal. There were vague rumors around the trade deadline that the D-Backs were interested in Shark, but the Superfriends were (rightly) asking for a king's ransom in return, so things never really got off the ground. It's kind of strange that there's so much more interest now, given that the pressure of a pennant race isn't hanging over desparate teams' heads anymore. I got the impression around the trade deadline that they had pretty much given up on an extension already. The D-Backs have a pretty good farm system, so it would be nice to pry some prospects away from them.
Nationals interested in Samardzija?
Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post reported that according to a source "familiar with the Nationals' thinking", the Nats have also plan to discuss trading for Samardzija. Given that Shark has two years left and their other targets (Scherzer, Price) each have one, he would seem to be more attractive. Also, why the hell would the Tigers want to trade Max Scherzer? It's not like they're in rebuilding mode right now. The Nats farm system kind of sucks, which makes me wonder if they'd have the horses to pick up one of those top pitchers anyway.
Pirates interested in Samardzija (and Castro)?
Quasi-BP figure John Perrotto reports that the Pirates are interested in Samardzija, and in the same piece it also mentions that they are interested in Starlin Castro. While the Cubs would never make a mega-deal with the Cardinals for a player like Castro, the Cubs and Pirates have certainly made plenty of trades in the past decade plus (including one particularly notable one centered around future HOF Bobby Hill). If they could trade both of them in a package deal maybe they could pick up one of those awesome young pitchers in the Pirates org (*cough* Tallion *cough).
Blue Jays interested in Samardzija?
Shi Davidi of sportsnet.ca reports that the Blue Jays are expected to make a push for Shark. The article mentions J.P. Arencibia and a bunch of their bullpen arms as trade chips, but what I'm more interested in are their pitchers. BA doesn't have their new list up yet, but they had a lot of pitchers in their top 10 going into last year.
All in all, this sudden flurry of interest in Shark has to be good for the Cubs, especially in a market where Ervin Santana will likely get nine figures from someone.
Comments
Who has more trade value, Jeff Samardzija or Rick Porcello?
EdwinQuote Reply
I need to fix something. In 8 games since this comment by some asshole…
Omar Little wrote:
Kaepernick has done this:
53.6% Completion, 1,263 Yards (6.98 YPA), 6 TD, 6 INT, 288 Rushing Yards.
Holy shit. Full season of that:
sucks
…and he’s taken a few games off.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
He drops because he and his brother have been in and out of prison.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
When you take out the three losses, Kaepernick is completing 59% of his passes for 1,307 yards (8.96 Y/A), 9 TDs and 1 INT in 6 games. That’s much more in line with what he was doing before.
The three losses were all to really physical defenses with strong CBs. The play calling gets conservative, WRs aren’t as open and Kaepernick “feels” pressure sooner.
So basically, SF should stop scheduling good teams with physical defenses.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Probably pretty close.
I don’t get the Jeff Samardzija rumors to be honest. Well, I guess I “get” them, but the Cubs need pitching. They don’t need less of it.
Castro? I’d be fine trading him if and only if the Cubs FO thinks Baez can stick at SS. If he can’t then it makes no sense.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I don’t care for trading Shark either, especially if the Cubs try to trade him for pitching. I would think the only way a team trades “impact” pitching talent to the Cubs is if that impact talent is 2 or more years away from MLB.
EdwinQuote Reply
Call me crazy, but at the $7 million per win level, I’d give Cano 8/200 – ish
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
You don’t even have to go that far. Using CAIRO and $6 million per win (7.5% inflation), he’s worth 8 years and $230 million.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
So if it’s $7 million per win, which I’m skeptical of, $200 million would be a steal.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think trading Shark is a good idea because the established pitching market is thin now and I think he had peaked. I suspect he will drop in value from here on out.
Good OF and SP at AAA. Is it possible to get that for him? Maybe plus bench C?
SVBQuote Reply
re: the video ads, every time I open a thread that fucking State Farm/Superfans ad starts up, followed by a video of some douchebag babbling about non-interesting sports stories. More often than not I have the volume down and don’t notice, but it can get a bit awkward when I’m wasting time at work (which has been less and less frequent lately, unfortunately). Minor quibble, I guess, but boy does autoplay suck.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I just sent an email to the people you’re supposed to send emails to when that shit happens.
al@bleedcubbieblue.com right?
dmick89Quote Reply
Would Taillon even be better than Jeff Samardzija?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
5-6 years of Tallion would probably be better than two of Shark
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ SVB:
If a team had good pitching in AAA, why would they need to trade for Samardzija?
EdwinQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
(dying laughing)
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
If they think they’re in win-now mode, I guess.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I get that. But is the difference between a pitcher like Tallion and Samardzija really enough of an upgrade that the Pirates would want to make that deal?
EdwinQuote Reply
Yeah, probably not. They’ve got plenty of other prospects though.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I mentioned the reasons I didn’t like the Cover 2 before. Here it is:
[img]http://www.ballsdeepsportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/seamstill31-1024×574.jpg[/img]
The two WR’s breaking outside at midfield are the safeties’ responsibility. That leaves the TE alone with the ILB.
[img]http://www.ultraimg.com/images/S2E5I.gif[/img]
It takes an amazing play by probably the best Cover-2 MLB in football to break up would is likely a TD. That’s SF’s second TE running the seam too. There are just way too many athletes at TE to cover that with an ILB. The average TE in today’s NFL is probably 3-5 inches taller and a few ticks faster than the average ILB.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
Who is that, Sean Lee?
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Yeah, but 5-6 years of a 1 WAR pitcher is probably “better” than 2 years of Samardzija considering his salary.
This time last year two of the core pieces of the Cubs future, we were told endlessly by writers, fans and blogger, were going to be Starlin Castro and Jeff Samardzija, along with Baez, Soler and Almora.
At what point is the future now? I’m starting to think it’s never because in about 4 years the Cubs might find themselves in the situation they’re now in with Baez. Maybe Bryant too.
Trading Castro, to some degree, makes sense. The Cubs have a lot of infield prospects. Pitching? They don’t have shit. I really don’t want to see the Cubs go from not having shit to not even not having shit.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
FWIW, Taillon’s been a top 20 prospect for the past few years
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I’d love to have Taillon. I’d like to have Taillon and Samardzija. I hate this crap about trading Jeff Samardzija. He has two years left before free agency. Why not see where you are this time next year before doing it? It’s not like he’s all that expensive right now.
dmick89Quote Reply
The thing with Samardzija is that the key to signing him to an extension is the assumption that he plays ball with the idea that a commitment now equals a discount and he is not interested in that. I don’t know where he said it, but somebody reported that he is content going year to year (it might have been Gordo – too lazy to look it up).
If that’s the case then Samardzija is not a value anymore, I have a feeling they don’t think he’s going to keep getting much better than he is right now, and this is the absolute top of his value. If he was as willing to sign an extension as Castro and Rizzo were, they’d still be talking about him as a core piece and have him wrapped up.
Nobody wanted to hear it when I said last year that the Superfriends would reach this point with him and they are now about there. Samardzija wants #1 money and he’s pitching like a #3 and they’re just not going to pay that.
So they trade him for a shit ton of prospects and use the saved money to sign someone like AJ Burnett or Ricky Nolasco to fill that #3 hole they just created, but for a shorter period of time than they would give to Samardzija, probably. That’s probably what I would do at this point.
Aisle424Quote Reply
How hilarious would it be if MLB owners sued Nippon baseball in Japan under Japanese antitrust law to invalidate the posting system?
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Kuechly, though Sean Lee is pretty close, imo.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Isn’t Japan notorious for its cartels/toothless antitrust laws?
GWQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Samardzija is a value right now and next year. Does trading Samardzija make the Cubs better? No, not right now and probably not in the future either. It’s highly unlikely you’re going to be getting what he provides in a trade. Maybe you get two with the potential to be him, but that’s a big if.
I don’t need the Cubs to come out ahead on every signing. I don’t need every signing to be of positive value to the Cubs. They aren’t the Royals. They can afford to pay market value for a good player and should.
Is he worth a long-term extension? Probably not for what Samardzija is wanting, but you’re not running out of time.
Trading Samardzija would be the first trade that doesn’t put them in better shape to do so in the future. To me, that sucks. Trading Samardzija is what small market teams have to do.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ GW:
Hell if I know, it’d just be awesome.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
For the Pirates, I think a trade like that would hinge more on what plugging in an unproven kid risks for them than on what Shark brings to the table in terms of upside. Think of it this way: if the Pirates do nothing, they’re still basically right on the line for making the postseason. They win two more games they might take the division, they lose two more and they might miss the wildcard.
I’m radically oversimplifying here to make a point, but let’s say that Shark is worth two wins and Taillon is worth somewhere between zero and four. If he’s worth zero, they miss the playoffs. If he’s worth two, they get a wildcard. And he’s worth four, they get the division.
The question becomes this: how valuable is knowing that you’ll get what you get with Shark, and how much do you potentially lose by risking it with the kid? A small-market team like the Pirates is probably better off rolling the dice in my opinion, but I can’t fault them for seeing that their window is open and wanting to bring some certainty to the table.
This notion of cost certainty took a lot of flak from folks who studied the value of a win early on, but I think it’s worth exploring. The A’s ran away with their division this year by avoiding black holes (and having Josh Donaldson). The Red Sox surrounded their core with guys who could be counted on to not suck (and got a few career years all at once). I kind of think that this is the new team-building paradigm, honestly.
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Yeah, I’m not sure I agree with this. If Shark is going to command Ervin Santana money, can’t you just trade him and replace him with Santana? Your return on the trade would just be a bonus, and in the short term, you’re right back where you started.
I get the hesitancy to deal guys who are proven effective players at the MLB level. They can be tough to get in free agency, you usually have to overpay for them, and you’re almost never going to bring in a guy who is a legit five-plus win player, so why not hold on to your own? But in this case, the guy you’re thinking of trading away has a number of comps in free agency right now and he’s going to demand free agent money to stay.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that a trade of F7 should be done simply to add assets to the organization (as most of the trades the club has made over the past three years have). If you trade him, you want to bring back talent that has the potential to become a top-two starter or middle of the order guy, because that’s what you need (and if we’re talking about Taillon, that’s what you’d get).
Right now, the Cubs are at a point where they can tolerate risk, whether we like that or not. And they need to take risks to open a window of contention. You take a risk if you bring in some other pitcher to fill Samardzija’s role, but I wouldn’t write off a trade as a step back into full rebuilding mode.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
Omar LittleQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
If Samardzija was a position player, I’d agree, but you need 5 starting pitchers.
My point, though, is that the specific trade of Jeff Samardzija doesn’t make you better right now and it doesn’t greatly improve you in the future either, Taillon is not a realistic option here. For Castro and Jeff Samardzija, sure, but if the Cubs could have gotten Taillon or similar talent in return last year, Jeff Samardzija would be gone.
Edwin asked earlier, but a comparable value for Jeff Samardzija is what the Tigers might get for Rick Porcello.
dmick89Quote Reply
Here’s a question. Say an NPB team wanted to up their profile, and wants to offer a contract to someone like Javier Baez, or some other top prospect. Sort of a flip flop on roles of the current posting system being talked about. I’m sure the MLB team that owns the player would ask for the moon, but lets say the NPB team makes a crazy offer like $100 million, and the Cubs or whoever say yes. The NPB team then signs Baez to a 2 year $20 Million deal. After those two years are up, can Baez come back to the MLB as a free agent?
I guess what I’m trying to ask is, what does a player need to do to be considered a free agent able to sign with any team?
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
In the US you need to have at least 6 years of MLB service time before you’re eligible for free agency. Many of the Japanese players have negotiated it so that the team cannot offer them arbitration, which allows them to become an unrestricted free agent. No idea what the NPB rules are.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
If that’s true he won’t be traded. But the conventional wisdom that I’m seeing on Twitter is that he’s being viewed as an answer to teams who can’t get Price. For whatever reason, Samardzija is still being viewed quite often as a front of the rotation guy and if you can get that price tag for a guy I think we all agree is NOT a front of the rotation guy you fucking do it unless it means you could miss the playoffs as a result.
The Cubs aren’t making the playoffs this year with or without Jeff Samardzija.
Aisle424Quote Reply
If the Cubs signed Choo and Tanaka, I think there’s an ok chance they would actually contend for the playoffs, so I don’t agree with your analysis in that respect (will they sign Choo/Tanaka? almost certainly not.)
MylesQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
If the Cubs can get way more than he’s worth, sure, go for it, but I want MLB ready players in return. I don’t buy it though. If the Cubs could have gotten that, he’d have been dealt at the deadline last year.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
Yeah, the Cubs get awfully close to being a legitimate contender if they signed two of Choo, Ellsbury and Tanaka.
I would sign two of them. They have the money.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Holding the issue of what return they might get to one side and if you accept the assumption that Samardzija can be replaced with a free agent who provides essentially identical production for an essentially identical price, I think I disagree here. If you get any return at all from the trade, you replace what you gave up via a free agent signing and net that return. And that does improve the team, whether by giving you MLB value in the future or another trade chip that can be used in the nearer term.
The question is whether or not he’s replaceable, and that’s legit. I see a guy who’s worth two wins and will ask for a salary in the mid-eight figures. That strikes me as something you can get through free agency. Reasonable people can disagree on whether he is replaceable at that price, of course, which is why GMs are GMs and not just dudes who are way too into fantasy baseball, I guess.
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I’d sign two Tanakas. Pitching wins championships.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
He’s replaceable for sure. I think I’ve been as down on him around here as anyone and I continue to be. I think 2 to 2.5 wins is about right. I guess I have a general distrust for what has transpired between Samardzija and the Cubs as reported by the media. Samardzija wants more money. What player doesn’t? The Cubs don’t want to pay that. What team doesn’t? I think that’s all I know.
If I had to guess, I’d say the Cubs offered something like $35 million over 5 years. Taking arbitration and multi-year discounts into consideration, that’s probably not far off from what the Cubs valued him at. I’d also guess that Samardzija wanted something more in line with what Danks got. That seems fair to me. Both sides seem fair in their analysis if my guesses are accurate.
I don’t think Samardzija touches what Santana is asking for and certainly not from the Cubs. I wouldn’t want them to, but I also think there is two years left before free agency and I’m not at all convinced teams haven’t gotten smarter in that they’ll give up more for a player like him now as opposed to next year. I think whatever the Cubs can get for him right now is just about the exact same as what they’ll be able to get this time next year. Maybe even in June or July 2015 when teams tend to overpay.
Considering Samardzija’s season last year, I’m in no hurry. He’s better than his ERA and teams still use that to value players.
So to me, trading Jeff Samardzija now means you’re content to not contend until 2016 or later. Why, if contending in 2015 is your goal, would you trade Samardzija right now when he’ll probably make $4-5 million next year and be as or nearly as valuable in a trade?
I also get really sick of the small market Cubs nonsense that I’m starting to think has more to do with Ricketts than I had been hoping.
If I run the team, the only way I trade Samardzija is if I get blown away. It’s the same reason I’d trade any player including any prospect in the organization.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
If I was really fancy, I’d link to the Mr Show sketch on YouTube about how all legal matters are settled by a series of blowjobs.
EdwinQuote Reply
424 mentioned going after free agents next offseason the other day. It’s a market that thins out over a year and even more so now, but if that’s what the plan is, does having Jeff Samardzija and his 1-year, $8-10 million commitment prevent them from signing anyone of significance? No. So if the plan is to go after free agents then and try to contend in 2015, doesn’t Jeff Samardzija help?
It’s why I don’t like the arguments that say you have to trade someone if you’re not going to contend the following year. If Jeff Samardzija is overpaid, try to trade him. If he’s not going to help on the next contending team, try to trade him. If you can get way more than he’s worth, try to trade him. The first two aren’t true. The third probably isn’t either. We should at least assume it isn’t until it is.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Edwin:
“I was first in my class. At Harvard.”
“Well, then it should be an excellent blow job.”
GBTSQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Omar LittleQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Omar LittleQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
Thank god someone else recognized that.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
What’s that from again?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
Ah, couldn’t make out what uniform it was. I figured cover 2 + monte kiffin being the DC over there meant it was probably Lee (dying laughing). Not that we’re going to see more of him anytime soon.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Oh, 1990s SNL. Yeah, I watched it then.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I’d rather the Cubs wait to trade him, or open up the checkbook to keep him around (I’m a Samardzija fan). They’re going to have to shell out for more pitching when they’re in contention anyway, might as well keep him around.
BerseliusQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I’m not sure I follow the logic with how trading him equates to being content with not contending next year. If he’s replaceable and you’re willing/able to spend the money to do sign that replacement, you can trade him essentially without consequence to next year’s record. Those are if’s, of course, and you’re right to note that he’s being paid below-market rates over the next couple of years. However, the Cubs have an abundance of payroll room in the near term, so that cheap production is not worth as much as it might otherwise be.
As for the small market dig, it’s only a small market strategy if you trade him and don’t replace him. I wouldn’t be too comfortable with that, either. But if you’re actually going to backfill his production via free agency (which does seem doable), that’s the opposite of a small market strategy. That’s trading away cheap production and replacing it with wins you pick up at market rate, with the added benefit of bringing in cheap production via the trade (albeit production that carries very high risk).
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Actually, it’s from Mr Show. Bob Odenkirk and David Cross, it was an HBO sketch comedy-ish show.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
I vaguely remember Mr SHow, but I don’t think I had HBO. I must have seen a clip of its somewhere.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Has the Hope Monster finally killed himself?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Number of Categories on Obstructed View: 9
Number of Sections on Bleed Cubbie Blue: 45
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Al has a lot on his mind?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Because I think it’s fairly clear (at least to me) that you keep Samardzija around if you’re wanting to contend in either of 2014 or 2015.
We can say for almost certainty this team is not going to trade Samardzija and then turn around and sign Santana for 5 years and $100 million or more. If they really wanted, they could extend Samardzija for 2 more years and $50 million. Even that’s absurd for Samardzija, he’s now a value compared to Santana. The Cubs have 2 cost-controlled years of Samardzija so I can’t imagine the Cubs thinking they’re going to trade him for prospects and get Santana and coming out ahead. You could, if you wanted, get Samardzija for a total of 4 years and $65ish million. Crazy for sure, but they could. Santanta 5-100. There is no way they’re going to get enough in return for Samardzija that they could possibly make up that 1/35 difference.
Realistically, I’m sure Jeff Samardzija would stick around in 2016 and 2017 for $20 million each year guaranteed to him today. That’s 4 years and $55 million total vs. 1/100.
Yeah, they could replace his value with someone like Santana, but not in terms of gaining value. They’d lose value if that was the plan.
To get back to your question though, you’ve got Jeff Samardzija for 2 years at a bargain compared to what he’d be worth in free agency. If you’re trading him now and not getting anything that can step in on day 1 (a proven mlb talent) I don’t see how you can say they plan to spend next offseason. Why not just keep what you have around?
If you’re not risking losing a whole lot in a trade, which I find hard to believe, why trade him right now? Why not evaluate your position at this time next year?
The above example of 4 years is why I think what Samardzija reportedly wants is overblown.
2014 and 2015: about $12-15 million
Let’s be generous and throw him $20 million each in 2016, 2017 and 2018. That’s a 5-year deal for $72-75 million. I’d like to keep it at $65 million. It’s also why I think Samardzija would probably be happy coming in at what Danks got (at least this time last year) and it’s why I think the Cubs lowballed him. The math here is fairly simple that the only way Jeff Samardzija can be holding out for more is if he thinks he’s going to be getting a 7 or 8 year deal. If he does, he’s stupid. Seems more likely the Cubs aren’t offering enough. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you have to trade him 2 years away from free agency.
FWIW, I’m going to be quite surprised to see Samardzija traded this offseason. I could see a deadline deal, but I don’t see one getting done this offseason. Again, if the Cubs couldn’t get what they wanted at the deadline last year, they’re probably not getting it this offseason. I’d be even more surprised to see Castro traded. You can’t sell “our time is NOW” as they’ve been doing since the end of the season when you trade two of your most valuable players.
dmick89Quote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
I have to be missing something. Can they realistically sign someone like Santana while coming out ahead even if we include the trade of Jeff Samardzija? I’m not seeing this.
I don’t see how it wouldn’t be better off for the team to just give Samardzija what he wants in terms of average annual value. It can’t possibly be so high that they wouldn’t still come out ahead compared to signing someone like Santana. Am I way off here or something?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Alvin is 5 times the blog that this is.
dmick89Quote Reply
Did you guys see that Darwin Barney was the highest vote-getter on the Cubs for this year’s NL MVP?
SVBQuote Reply
By the way, I get the autoplay video ads too, but if you press the “See More” (ranked Cubs) then it goes away.
I would definitely go to adblock for that, but I can be patient til the next migration.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Seriously?
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
That depends on how you’re evaluating the deal. I was simply noting that given the team’s current constraints, you could make the deal and replace Samardzija’s 2014/15 value (in terms of WAR, not $/WAR) relatively easily via free agency, and that since you currently have payroll flexibility to pay more for those wins you might want to take that approach if you can get a good return on a trade. Once you hit 2016, the cost you’ll pay for F7 relative to a guy you grab on the open market for the same production is theoretically equal.
To ‘win’ the deal based on $/WAR, you’d have to realize value from the return on the trade, and there’s risk inherent there. But that’s different than punting on 2014 because you’ve traded Jeff Samardzija.
If you want to throw the kitchen sink at competing in 2014 and 2015, I concede that you’d probably want to use that payroll flexibility to bring in additional wins instead of replacing what you trade away. However, I’m not sure you can really build the core of a sustainable winner through free agency given the way baseball works these days. I personally think that there’s room to deal some of the “core” pieces that the Cubs have now for guys who can potentially become impact guys — that is, guys who are good enough that their comps will not be available on the free agent market — while backfilling the production you lose with similarly talented players through free agency, and that’s your best path to building a winner.
Santana’s probably a bad example due to the potential contract numbers that are circling around him right now, but you could plausibly grab a guy like Bartolo Colon for 2/$20 and deal Samardzija for an arm with #1 potential and it would be a push in terms of your 2014 roster. I just think that it’s more likely that you get those true impact players to form the core of a real, sustainable winner via trades for minor leaguers (hopefully advanced ones, of course) than it is to buy them via free agency or trades for established MLB regulars. Taking that approach leaves you no worse for 2014 than you are today, where you have a few nice pieces but are banking on the kids to push you into contention.
A small market team would not take this approach, FWIW. A small market team would make the trade and not replace him with an established player. What I’ve described above is ‘buying’ prospects with payroll room, and is a minor variation on how the Cubs have turned their farm system around so quickly.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yes. In a 46-way tie with every other Cub.
[img]http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusmlbexperts/nlmvpballots111413.jpg[/img]
SVBQuote Reply
For me the question about F7 is whether he is a #3 starter or better, or not. If he is the starter of the second half of 2012 and first couple months of 2013, he’s a 1-2. If he is the same as the second half of 2013, he’s a 3 at best. Do you think he’ll be as good as last season as a whole? If so, I think he’s worth keeping, if not, I think he’s worth trading.
My personal prediction is that he is worse next year than in 2013. So if the Pirates want to trade a package centered on Tallion, or if the Angels would trade Garrett Richards, and a reasonably talented AA OF or something, I’d do that. Because I think F7’s value by July 15 will be far lower than now, and not just because he’s played half a season more, but because his performance won’t be as good. Then I’d sign Bronson Arroyo.
So you could have
Wood
Jackson
Arroyo/Josh Johnson/other FA
Tallion/Richards
Rusin/Arrieta/Hendrick/Grimm/reclamation (Vogelsong/Lewis)
You would basically be trading more salary for an FA now and getting a decent SP/OF prospect for paying F7 later. Then, later, the SP you get now will still be under arb control and you have payroll available for an additional FA.
But I see the argument for keeping F7 too. And what hasn’t been mentioned is that if F7 really is good, and the Cubs don’t want to sign him in 2 years when he is a FA. They could make a qualifying offer and get a draft pick.
SVBQuote Reply
Dying laughing.
Now we know what SK has been doing in his free time…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/ranking-every-episode-of-buffy-the-vampire-slayer
SVBQuote Reply
New shit: http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/the-peoples-front-of-cubs-nation-hates-theo.html
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
CHC Fans want ‘Shark’ to stay…bring back R. Dempster too, dump a few CHC, O.K., NOT ‘Shark’.
JoAnnA ForisQuote Reply
After looking over some of your blogs on your website, I genuinely appreciate your manner of blogging. I added it to my bookmark site number and will also be checking back in the future. Big Brother TV http://big-brother-albania-2013.blogspot.de/
Big Brother TVQuote Reply