Well, this doesn’t make me too confident in the Cubs financial situation.
Cubs GM Hoyer confirms money the big issue in moving DeJesus. Saves 2.5 mil. Hoyer left door open for DeJesus return if option not picked up
— Jesse Rogers (@ESPNChiCubs) August 19, 2013
I guess we can cross off any of the top free agents this offseason. I’m getting a little sick of that.
If the Cubs are making this type of move to save 2.5M this team is unlikely to contend in 2015.
JManQuote Reply
I accept your apologies, asshats.
joshQuote Reply
May not be a long-term money situation. Could be a short term cashflow issue. Need money to sign the IFAs, so move DeJesus with an understanding that the Nats just want to rent him and they’ll let us have him back at the end of the year (i.e., not pick up his option). Just a thought.
joshQuote Reply
You guys are finally coming around to what I’ve been saying, though. They called this a five year plan, not a 2 year plan, for a reason.
joshQuote Reply
@ josh: 2-year is completely unrealistic. Even if they plan to contend in 2015 they are going to need a few of Baez, Bryant, Almora, Soler, etc to be up and ready to contribute by end of 2014 with some quality trades/FAs added into the mix. That’s just to contend. Most of these players won’t be hitting their peak until 2017 or later.
JManQuote Reply
I don’t think this means anything in regards to the 2014 pay roll. Sometimes I think we forget that although baseball is fun for us to watch and talk about, it is a business that works on a yearly cycle like every other business.
It’s no secret that attendance has been way down. While “reported attendance” is higher than actual attendence, reality is that lots of money is made through concessions. Revenue for the Cubs is probably at one of the lowest it’s been in years. I imagine it is hard to secure a loan for a $500m loan with a high debt to income ratio. The Cubs have spent, what, $20-$30m on the amateur talent this year?
I work at Angie’s List where we are always projecting revenue months and years ahead. If next year is a year we can be in the race, they will spend. Ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, advertising, and other forms of revenue will project at higher levels if this team is even .500.
I don’t think we can look at a deal like this and make any conclusions. I don’t think this move says anything we didn’t already know about the Cubs financial situation.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JKV, you may well be right, but it’s not a good sign (IMO) that a large market team is making a trade to free up $2.5 million. This could be the result of the Cubs overspending on IFA’s. this could also explain why, once they had gone over, they didn’t go WAY over.
I don’t think this can be explained, to me at least, why a large market team would do this. I just don’t like it. Not one damned bit.
dmick89Quote Reply
If it has to do with IFA, I don’t see how else to explain it other than they just don’t have money.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
it would be one hell of a coincidence that the one guy that they targeted to go over for also happened to be the one IFA who hadn’t committed by July 2nd. i don’t buy it, i think he was the only GUY available after they sorted their situation out. planning one last post on this
GWQuote Reply
i’m also not sure if i’m buying this current line, though I think we will find out for sure when the ptbnl is announced.
the one thing i think it tells us about 2014 is that there will still be a lot of experimenting going on in the outfield, where experimenting is code for “shitty players.” could still make a run at a medium-term piece, but I don’t think they expect to compete. if they did, dejesus is a decent, cheap option.
GWQuote Reply
I agree with josh that it could be a short term cash flow issue they needed to resolve. Maybe they could still have Dejesus if they didn’t sign Gerardo Conception (dying laughing)
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I dunno. The Cubs picked Schierholtz off the scrap heap, and he’s been better than DeJesus. I think the Cubs can find another DeJesus easily. I’m purely offering a reasonable doubt. There’s worth and there’s cashflow. I could easily be way off. Hoyer could be if not lying then at least telling a half truth. It doesn’t really matter, I don’t think. DeJesus isn’t exactly irreplaceable. It’s almost a non move. I bet no one bats an eyelash if they’d traded Schierholtz an the same deal.
joshQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’d lean towards this as a salary dump, but the possibility remains that they are freeing up funds for 2014. If you’re the Cubs, you have three choices here: first, you hang on to DeJesus and he’s a fringe starter/fourth OF type for $6.5MM in 2014. Second, you cut DeJesus and pay $1.5MM for the privilege of not having him around. Or third, you do what they did today. Assuming that the second possibility doesn’t make sense for political (and financial) reasons, you’re down to options 1 and 3. If that’s the case, you’ve cleared $6.5MM in payroll space for 2014, which is a decent amount of money. At the very least, you’ve covered the money that goes to the Yankees to pay Carlos Silva from the Soriano deal.
I don’t buy that the front office has a direct mandate to cut payroll. I think that two things are true: first, that they came into the gig making an agreement with the Rickettssess that they wouldn’t spend unless they knew that it would make sense (and implicitly, that they could spend when it did make sense), and they know that the window is only open a crack for next year so it might not warrant making big-money moves to contend just yet. The other thing might be that they feel like they can do better filling half of a corner spot for $6.5MM next year. That might even mean bringing DeJesus back for less than his original deal, though if I were him I might reject an offer like that on general principles even if nothing better were available. I guess he gets the $1.5MM kill fee regardless of who signs him up, though, so maybe not.
Either way, it’s still a strange move on both sides. I’ll be curious to see what comes back from the two deals when Nick Cafardo breaks the story this winter.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ JMan:
Yeah….
that’s what I’m saying. Thoyer called their plan a 5-year plan. People have been talking here about being a fringe contender next year, but I don’t buy it at all.
That said, I don’t think DeJesus is exactly a vital piece of the plan. Trading him, I think, means next to nothing.
joshQuote Reply
In other news, B’s prediction of 12 runs from the new and improved lineup is looking good.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
It could have been a favor to Rizzo. Relationship building or something.
joshQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
That’s funny. He came to my mind, too.
GW, I agree that the Cubs were left with little to do at the point they finally realized they were unable to acquire additional space. Still, the Cubs overage is around $2.5 million, isn’t it? A little more than that?
I’m not saying that means for sure that’s what this is. I don’t know and I doubt I’ll ever know for sure, but it was clear to me the Cubs did not want to go over budget.
Don’t know. Didn’t really like the trade earlier and now I like it significantly less. I’m assuming the Cubs don’t get back anything other than the typical PTBNL.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ josh:
understand your point, josh, and I don’t think they are all that close. thing is, you don’t have to be a contender to add a free agent or keep decent players around on good deals, which has pretty much been their MO up to this point.
GWQuote Reply
@ josh:
That stuff does happen. Fill my Coke machine for the rest of the year, Mike!
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
$2.3 million. thing is, their acquisition of bonus space only saved them $960k.
they could have spent $3.7 million less by acquiring $400k more in space (can’t remember the exact figure) and not signing tseng. whatever the cost of that money would have been in terms of prospects, they weren’t willing to give it up.
GWQuote Reply
That was a really fast game.
dmick89Quote Reply
Texas had a 11-run inning against the Astros.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Nice day for the Cubs. Except Castro. Great for Samardzija and Schierholtz.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
GW wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzSUo8iPp4M
sitrickQuote Reply
I’m not sure I believe Hoyer is telling the truth. A couple of weeks ago, Epstein said of the Intl money: “Its just a million here, million there, doesn;t mean alot to us” so 2 weeks later they really need to save 2.5M. Clearly one of them is lying, probably both. I’m sure they have some other reason for this deal, bizarre as it is as now WASH has immediately put DeJesus back on waivers apparently to try to get the $$ back.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/washington-nationals-david-dejesus-chicago-cubs-trade-081913:
“The Nationals will learn Wednesday if DeJesus cleared waivers. The Cubs will be interested in re-signing him if the Nationals or another team that acquires him declines his club option, sources said.”
I just don’t think the whole story is out on this one yet. Very strange.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Curses, only off by one.
BerseliusQuote Reply
You have two players:
Player 1. Pretty high value but a risk for next year because he tends to get injured. Had a minor injury this year but good power potential. Not young. OK in OF. High salary. Traded
Player 2. Average value but a risk for next year because of injury and severe platoon splits. Had an injury this year. Average power, OK to good in OF. Not young. Reasonable salary. Traded.
Difference between 1 and 2 is mainly more salary for one but with more output. Both had contract or option for next year, when the Cubs would not contend, but they would each have been helpful in minimizing shittiness of play next year.
To me, the approach used here is exactly the same in both cases. But the comments suggest it was a good idea to trade Soriano (Player 1) and a bad idea to trade DeJesus. Looks like the same trade to me. DeJesus has less value, so return is less, but the Cubs are trading him while he has some value left.
SVBQuote Reply
My takeaway is that those citing the $2.5 million savings aren’t entirely correct. Moving DeJesus now might save that number, but keeping him through next year costs what, about $7.5 million from this point? I’m okay with moving him now to avoid the buyout and get a longshot prospect. His value at the 2014 deadline would likely be too minimal to keep him now.
2014 Cubs are a 69-72 win team again, unless Castro and Rizzo get really good and another 1 or 2 position players succeed. I have to think best case is still 77 wins or so. NL Central is too tough. Even if pitching acquisitions pay major dividends, I’m guessing they’d be up for grabs at the deadline again. I don’t think Strop or Russell are locks to make it to 2015 at all. Arrieta and other projects are as likely to go as stay.
JQuote Reply
2.5 million is actually a lot of money. Anytime you can save that without hurting yourself, you do it. Sounds like the Cubs might have a deal with DeJesus to re-sign him in the winter, maybe it’s $6.5 million for two years. He wants to stay but he’s old and not a huge WAR guy. They obviously like the example he sets as a leader and OBP guy. He knows he’s not gonna get a big contract from someone else.
If they don’t have such an agreement in place, I’d say they have other plans for the OF next year.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
New Shit
http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/jot-cubes-minor-league-recap-8-19-13.html
MylesQuote Reply
I dunno; between not knowing the PTBNL (not that I think it will be a worthwhile player) and how this $2.5M will affect savings/budget in the aggregate with all other moves, I can’t really feel terrible about this deal or the CUbs hopes for the future (beyond how bad the Cubs hopes are for the near term). Even for a large business, like the Cubs or my employer, $2.5M is not immaterial savings.
MishQuote Reply