From Jed Hoyer via David Kaplan:
"We've had discussions w/Samardzija because we like him + want to keep him. We'll see where things go. We like hearing he wants to be here."
— David Kaplan (@thekapman) November 16, 2013
We've already heard the Cubs have talked about an extension with Jeff Samardzija, but what this doesn't make clear is whether they've had recent discussions. I'd say it probably does because there wouldn't be much need to continue talking about past discussions at this point.
A Jeff Samardzija extension at this point is relatively simple to calculate. He earned $2.64 million last year in his first year of arbitration and has two more years of eligibility. Matt Swartz has been projecting arbitration salaries the last couple years on MLB Trade Rumors and he projected Samardzija would earn $4.9 million in 2014. This is a pretty safe bet at this point.
Samardzija hasn't been a phenomenal player and there are many other players to compare him to in the arbitration process. Without even knowing what Swartz projected, I'd have said somewhere between $4 million and $5.5 million. We also know that he won't earn less money in 2015 so if we take that $4.9 million and safely double it as a worst case scenario for Samardzija. More likely, he'll be good, but not great and get a bump to around $8 million or so.
- 2014: $4.9 million
- 2015: $8 million
Both of those figures are estimates, but we've got a long history of arbitration players to base that estimation on. He won't make much more than $13 million over the next two years and he won't make much less than that either.
This is why the process for figuring out how much he's worth over an extension is somewhat simple. The first two years of that extension are, for the most part, already known.
One way to calculate the rest would be to figure out his WAR projection for 2014 and go from there in the same way we usually do. For example, Fangraphs already has some of the 2014 Steamer projections. I'm not really sure these are their projections since Steamer has not, to my knowledge released them yet. Oh well, it's probably what I'd have gone with anyway so we'll use it. Steamer has him being a 2.8 WAR player next year.
2014 will be his age 29 season so we'll keep him at 2.8 in 2014 and 2015 and then begin to lower it by 0.5 WAR after that.
- 2014: 2.8 WAR
- 2015: 2.8 WAR
- 2016: 2.3 WAR
- 2017: 1.8 WAR
- 2018: 1.3 WAR
Since we already can nail down his salary in 2014 and 2015, we only need to be concerned about the following three seasons in our calculations. If we use $6 million per win in 2014 and increase by 7.5% annually, here's what we would get in those years:
- 2014: $4.9 million
- 2015: $8 million
- 2016: $15.95 million
- 2017: $13.42 million
- 2018: $10.42 million
- Total: $52.68 million
Steamer is only projecting 173 innings so we should probably bump that up a bit, which would also increase the WAR. So maybe around a total of 5 years and $55 million. Or $60 million. That's about what he's worth.
Let's be generous though and throw Samardzija $20 million annually from 2016 through 2018. He's not worth that, not even we're more generous than is reasonable. That would put a max value of 5 years and $72.9 million.
So we've got a range for a total of a 5-year extension between $53 million and $73 million. Jeff Samardzija and his agent are smart enough to figure out that if he is to sign an extension, he's not going to be getting more than that. This comes down to whether or not Samardzija thinks he can make more going year to year as he has been. In other words, by going year to year the next two seasons, can he then get a team to sign him for more?
He might, but he might end up with a whole hell of a lot less. Samardzija would be counting on maintaining his current level of talent longer than expected. Athletes have big egos, but at some point realism has to set in too.
Comments
This is where there is a disconnect with the Cubs. I’m pretty sure Samardzija wants to get paid like he’s providing 4-5 WAR per year.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Also, Bruce Miles says Wood, Sutcliffe, Karros, and Grace are not candidates for the radio job, but Ron Coomer might be.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I think all players want to be paid more than they’re ultimately worth and all teams want to pay them under that. I don’t think we know where Jeff Samardzija wants his salary. Even if he thinks he’s worth 4 WAR right now, here’s how that breaks down: 4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5 and that’s a total of $79 million. So it’s only slightly more than if we’re talking $20 million annually from 2016 through 2018.
If he thinks he’s a 5 WAR player right now he’d be looking at $101 million.
That’s why this is pretty simple at this point. It’s somewhere between $50 million and $70 million.
If Jeff Samardzija was a free agent this offseason and we used 2.8, 2.8, 2.3 1.8 and 1.3 WAR over 5 years, he’d be worth $74 million. In other words, if the Cubs can get him for $65 million, they save over what they’d pay for a free agent of similar value.
The Cubs just aren’t going to save much at this point and that’s where I think the difference is. They want to save and I don’t blame them, but they’re not going to save much. It’s why if I had to bet money, I’d bet on the Cubs having offered last year 5 years and $35 million. Because much more than that for them wouldn’t have been much of a saving and we know these guys are looking for savings. I would also bet on Jeff Samardzija having wanted 5 years and $75 million and I don’t blame him either.
It makes sense to me that the disconnect here is more rational than we want to believe. Jeff Samardzija isn’t dumb and neither are the Cubs. In this instance, both parties seem to be on somewhat solid ground if there is a large difference.
I say that assuming the Cubs weren’t or aren’t offering $15 million and Samardzija wasn’t countering with $125 million.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think Samardzija is just betting on him being better than he has been in the past and he wants to be paid better if he improves. If he signs an extension for five years now, he wont be a free agent until after his age 33 season which won’t get him very much. If he hits FA after his age 30 season as he is projected to do now, its possible someone will give him 5 years after that
AndrewQuote Reply
There’s also been reported disagreement about the inclusion of a NTC in the contract. Epstein doesn’t do them on principle, and F7 clearly wants one. Its easy to understand his desire for one given how many teammates he’s seen traded away the last few years. I wonder if they could give in a bit on the NTC and save more $$ that way. 5/40 and a NTC? I’d go for that. Even if he never pans out, he’s a surplus asset
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
All this Shark talk has us overlooking the rebuilding that is actually going on…Cubs signed LF Aaron Cunningham and IF Walter Ibarra.
Who?
SVBQuote Reply
Every report I’ve heard about F7 has suggested this is not something he’s come to grasp quite yet.
sitrickQuote Reply
Who’s the better pitcher, Samardzija or Shields?
Rays got Wil Myers for Shields. If the Cubs could swing a similar deal. ..I’d take OF production.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
shields i think, but over the next 2 years, who knows
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I don’t know how you can say that without direct knowledge of what both sides are willing to take. Whatever has been in the media is nothing more than negotiating tactics. Robinson Cano wants 300 million from what I’ve read. Cano won’t get that, but that doesn’t mean he’s not being realistic.
Just makes more sense that both sides are being rational. There’s a very wide range in what he can be worth depending on how you look at it.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Oh, I don’t mean in regard to contract negotiations, more just in general. The guy supposedly has a gigantic ego, even by pro athlete standards.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
That could be. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that though. Apparently Javier Baez has an ego as large as all the athletes and politicians combined. That could be a good thing or it could totally suck. In my opinion, it’s not a problem until teammates speak up about it in a negative manner like we saw with Carlos Zambrano. Then you’ve got a problem.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ SVB:
If an offer like that comes along, you trade him. The Royals still have a good system so maybe the Cubs ought to call ’em up.
Most people thought that deal was a horrible one so I wouldn’t count on something like that again.
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.mandatory.com/2012/02/29/bill-murray-calls-a-cubs-game-in-1987/
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I think its feasible the FO knows an extension isn’t going to happen based on negotiations so far, and if that is the case they need to keep the illusion alive that they are not desperate to trade him so they may extract max value. If he wants much more than the 74 million I think they need to trade him sometime before the trade deadline this year.
Abe FromanQuote Reply
@ Abe Froman:
Yeah, that’s OK. I wouldn’t want him for more than $70 million. If the Cubs can get it done for under that, I’d hope they do it.
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stx_4PZrFqw
dmick89Quote Reply
Do you believe now, Bears fans?
[img]http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/139/9/0/morpheus___the_matrix_by_benji3o3-d50bc8i.gif[/img]
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
I like Trestman, really do. He really confuses me sometimes though. He didn’t go for it on 4th and 1 yesterday when he normally does (oh well), he threw 3 times on the goal line, and his time management at the end of the game was questionable (not calling timeouts when the Ravens had the ball on the goal line).
I loved the sports radio this morning. Heard Alex Brown talking on the radio about McCown “Need to play the hot hand. Let the kid play.”
Alex Brown: Date of Birth June 4, 1979 (age 34)
Josh McCown: Date of Birth July 4, 1979 (age 34)
WaLiQuote Reply
Anybody need a QB taken out? I am taking offers. QB must be available in my fantasy league. Track record:
Drafted Cutler: Currently out with Groin/Ankle mystery injury.
Picked up Jake Locker: Season ending surgery
Picked up Case Keenum: Benched in 3rd Qtr to be replaced by pick-6 king, Matt Schaub. I’m thinking he was playing so good his performance had to be cut short.
WaLiQuote Reply
This GIF does not do this catch justice. This had to be the best catch I have ever seen in my life. Can’t believe UCF almost lost this game.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24243823/gif-jj-wortons-amazing-catch-in-ucfs-3936-win-at-temple
[img]http://www.cbssports.com/images/collegefootball/J-J-Worton-Catch-Of-The-Year.gif[/img]
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I think CAR loses tonight, making them 6-4. Of the 6-4 teams (SF, CHI, DET, ARI and possibly CAR), SF, DET and CHI have the most favorable schedules. If Rodgers comes back by the DET game, I still think that division is up in the air.
Despite blowing that game yesterday, SF showed that NO isn’t a machine…it’s a man. SEA has also come back to earth a bit, but I wouldn’t want to go there in the playoffs.
This seems to be shaping up to be a “just get in the playoffs” year in the NFC.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
Still laughing about this Tom Brady picture
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
That and the end of the AUB/GA game made for an entertaining Saturday.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
Who would have guessed that losing the best player in football would hurt a team so badly?
The Packers should have had a pro-bowl caliber QB backing up Rodgers.
/2009 Cubs fans re Aramis Ramirez injury
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
He looks like pre-lumberjack Dexter.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
[img]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003588731/2115207167_Undertaker_undertaker_15789647_967_1024_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg[/img]
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
They usually do. I thought it was odd that they seemed so content to go into the season without a second QB. And how was VY not a better option than Seneca Wallace?
Omar LittleQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
Losing Cutler doesn’t seem to be hurting the Bears so badly.
WaLiQuote Reply
WaLi wrote:
I can tell you’re not a Real Bears Fan because you’re not on a first name basis with your QB.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Omar Little wrote:
No kidding.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Just because it bears repeating, ASU and the Pac-10 can eat a bag of frozen lizard dicks.
It’s been kind of hilarious watching the announcers map out Wisconsin’s slim at-large BCS bowl chances the last two weeks without mentioning that debacle. They finally mentioned it halfway through Saturday’s game, but only in reference to how it’s hurting aOSU’s strength of schedule.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
[img]http://haydenfannews.com/hcfn_starwars/hc-starwars-rots2.jpg[/img]
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
Sorry your fun at the Bills game had to end so abruptly, MB.
http://961joyfm.com/buffalo-bills-fan-falls-from-upper-bowl-onto-another-fan-and-its-caught-on-tape-video/?trackback=twitter_top
Aisle424Quote Reply
According to the NFL Rulebook, Ahmad Brooks’ hit on Drew Brees yesterday is considered unnecessary roughness. According to my rulebook, though, the call still sucked.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
That was another in the technically-correct-but-terrible-calls category. I was happy because I needed Brees to throw a damn TD pass, but it never happened.
Now I need Gronk and Amendola to combine for 21 fantasy points tonight to win one match-up, but at the same time, Gronk has to score less than 13 fantasy points himself for me to win my other matchup.
Like you care.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Exactly. I get why the rule’s in place, but that was more due to Brees being short than Brooks ill intent. If you’re going to call that penalty on that play, you should have no problem calling illegal contact on Jimmy Smith against Michael Crabtree in the Super Bowl. Segue…
Much like the non-call in the Super Bowl, I’m not blaming the call for the loss at all. The SF offense is really frustrating me these days.
– The book is out on the SF O-line. They’re susceptible to stunts and twists, and NFL defenses know it.
– The WRs suck. No one can get separation and the ones not named Boldin can’t catch.
– The play-calling is terrible. The coaches can scheme a run game better than any NFL team I’ve seen in a while, but it’s like they’re new to the forward pass. A lot of the routes they run have one target with the other WRs running to block/pick.
– The QB is regressing. I’m trying to be pragmatic here: He’s getting pressured more quickly, his WRs aren’t all that open usually and he only has 1-2 targets on most pass plays. Add the fact that it seems like he’s been instructed to run less, and he has a lot working against him. Still, he’s not above reproach. His throws are sailing (from inconsistent mechanics), he’s missing open WRs and he doesn’t seem to be developing the anticipation (of what the defense will do, when a WR will be open, etc.) he’ll need to be successful.
Aisle424 wrote:
Please. With all the football shit I post here? “Like you care” should be my username.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
Testing new username…
Like You CareQuote Reply
Omar Little wrote:
I haven’t looked at all to see what Smith has done, but I see KC winning and Capernick not playing too well, so do you still consider the trade a good one?
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
FWIW, still looks like a clear win for SF to me. It’s not like KC is winning games because of Alex Smith, so much as they’re winning games because of Not Matt Cassel.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Like berselius said, KC is winning based on defense and running the ball. Alex Smith is statistically worse than Kaepernick and even himself when he was in SF.
Kaepernick is going through the same growing pains every QB goes through. His are just overstated, imo, because expectations were so high coming into the season. He makes more mistakes than Smith, but he’s younger, cheaper, more athletic and just as smart as Smith. He can do a lot of things Smith just can’t. I liked Alex Smith, but he shouldn’t even attempt a pass more than 15 yards down the field.
But even if you listened to the media/masses and believed Smith were better than Kaepernick, I’d still take the inferior QB, Tank Carradine (who was a top-10 talent in the draft before injury), KC’s 2nd rounder and TEN’s 3rd rounder. Going off the nfldraftscout rankings (which are VERY fluid):
Kaepernick ……………………………….. Alex Smith
Tank Carradine
Tajh Boyd
Donte Moncrief
Like You CareQuote Reply
Unfortunately the Daniel Bard reclamation project isn’t going too well:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/17/daniel-bard-struggling-in-puerto-rican-winter-league/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs
Jim LQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
Adrian Peterson got hurt?
sitrickQuote Reply
Like You CareQuote Reply
If the season ended today, the top of the draft would look something like this:
1. JAX – Bridgewater
2. MIN – Mariota
3. TB (I project trade) – Clowney
4. ATL – Matthews
5. HOU – Barr
Like You CareQuote Reply
That just makes me laugh.
dmick89Quote Reply
Tim Hudson would have been a good low risk investment for the Cubs, but he’s gone.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
100% agree. Good pitcher. Not a huge $ or year investment. Sounds like a no brainer…
srbutch5Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
The Yankees should sign me, we’re only $5M apart in talks!
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Probably he learned time management under 2 minutes at the same place Les Miles did. I don’t know exactly where that place was, but I imagine there was a lot of pot smoking going on.
SVBQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Amen to that. All the shit the Big Ten is getting ignores a few facts.
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Havent seen any connection to him at all but i really want them to take a chance on Dan Haren and get Bosio to work his groundball magic on him.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
@ SVB:
…facts:
Baylor played an even weaker non-conference schedule than Ohio St. Wofford, Buffalo, and UL Monroe. No non-conference BCS schools. At least Ohio St played Cal. I know Cal is horrible, but when the schedule was made, Cal was good. And OSU’s Div 1-AA game came about because Vanderbilt backed out. Baylor has only beaten one ranked opponent. Oklahoma. If they beat OkState this weekend, then they can start talking. Up til Oklahoma, Baylor really hadn’t played anyone. OSU, Wisconsin, and Mich St all played 2 ranked opponents by that point.
Stanford, until yesterday’s loss, had one loss to Utah! If they had beaten Southern Cal, folks were thinking they’d jump OSU with a loss to Utah? Come on.
For what it’s worth, CBS has Wisconsin projected to play Clemson in the Orange Bowl. Apparently they think OSU will beat MSU and MSU will drop below Wisconsin in the rankings. Could happen. Is Wisconsin’s loss to ASU less of a problem than MSU’s loss to ND? Wisconsin had a pretty good non-conf schedule.
SVBQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
That’s not a sentence you see very often (dying laughing). I was pretty surprised when there were two ‘real’ non conference teams on the schedule.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I don’t know anything about college football except that it’s horseshit the Gophers aren’t in the AP Top 25. What more does that team need to do?
sitrickQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Pretty sure they are still afraid of Western Michigan since losing to them in 88. (dying laughing)
svb mobileQuote Reply
Have the Cubs talked extension with Jeff Samardzija?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Clone Hageman about 21 times.
Like You CareQuote Reply
dmick89Quote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Not Be In The Big Ten
MylesQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Yes and it will be the highlight of the offseason.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
There really hasn’t been anything else to talk about. In the past I came up with some shit just to publish articles, but I can’t do that these days. Hopefully in a few months I can, but I feel like I’ve been saying that for the last 12 months. So who knows?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
Big Ten stinks.
[img]http://img.pandawhale.com/67253-archer-deal-with-it-gif-NRxp.gif[/img]
WaLiQuote Reply
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus
I don’t know much about advanced stats for college football, but those are the rankings.
The above link is a combination of these 2 rankings:
(This first link has a strength of schedule element)
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei
and
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
NateQuote Reply
Cano does not want $300 million. He wants $310 million. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Nate:
Wow, FO really likes this Wisconsin team.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I just comment’d this at BN among 48,000 other comments. So I can’t imagine anybody will read it but I wanted to ask you fucking nerds if I’m wrong:
amirite?
http://www.shouldthishavebeenafanshot.com
fang2415Quote Reply
@ fang2415:
…sort of? I agree that there is definitely a trend towards locking-up elite talent, but I wouldn’t necessarily agree that it happened concurrently with the new CBA. Teams (especially cash-strapped ones) have been hyper-aggressive in locking up their talent well before FA, but that’s been happening for probably half-a-dozen years.
The 2 big problems I have right now with this measured approach to rebuilding is that it’s a) extremely risky, because you’re hedging bets on many prospects “arriving” at roughly the same time and b) it’s extremely lazy, because good GMs find deals via trades/FA and improve that way, a process that CAN and DOES happen concurrently with rebuilding a farm system. To punt on 2014 before essentially anyone has signed, and to lay the groundwork on a 2015 punt, is almost insanity. If that’s the plan, I’m pretty certain I have no confidence in either this GM or this ownership. I’m a lot closer today than I was 3 weeks ago to channeling my inner Alvin and writing a hatchet piece.
MylesQuote Reply
@ fang2415:
Definitely seems that way to me. The Mets seem like they’re in a fairly similar situation to the Cubs (if slightly more ahead of the game with MLB-ready or near-MLB ready talent). Craig Goldstein pointed out this morning that they have 25 mil on the books (before arb raises) right now. So it’s not as if the Cubs are alone in acting this way.
sitrickQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
Have Thoyer not been doing this? Because it’s certainly seemed like they’ve been doing this.
And I haven’t seen good GMs being active in this free agent market so far. I’ve seen a lot of Ruben Amaro tossing out 3 year deals like they’re candy.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Do it do it. I’ll give you 5 bonus internets if you can get Alvin to write a post on BCB just to make fun of your hatchet piece.
Anyway, I didn’t mean that the CBA and the extension thing were connected or even totally concurrent, just that they’re two major changes in the landscape over the past few years that have made it a lot harder to use money to rebuild fast. (Also I think the lock-ups have gone from being a Rays-only thing to a nearly-everybody thing in the past two or three years.)
That doesn’t mean that a smart FO can’t still gain an advantage, it just means that any gains will be difficult and incremental. We used to think/hope that a dumb FO could rebuild in 5 years and a smart one in two; now it seems like a dumb one can do it in 5 and a smart one has a 50% chance of doing it a year faster.
fang2415Quote Reply
ESPN’s MLB Free Agent Tracker currently lists Geo as Giovanni Soto, a 22 year old SP:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents
sitrickQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
Agreed.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ sitrick:
Sort of misspoke. I feel like they have done that, but it doesn’t seem like that is the plan this year. Last year, they put a team with some upside on the field that had parts they could flip (Feldman) and parts that were more long-term (Jackson). It didn’t work, but was probably closer than the average Cubs fan might think. We’re another year into the development of our young talent, and believe it or not, we have more MLB pieces right now than we did at this time last year. Why on earth is it not feasible to do the same thing this year, especially when we have more to spend and the top free agents without fail all just happen to fill the holes our team has?
MylesQuote Reply
fang2415 wrote:
This. Especially because the difference between the smart ones and dumb ones get smaller every year.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
Who’s saying that’s not what they’re doing? If they get Tanaka and sign a bunch of flyers, that’s basically the same kind of offseason as Jackson and a bunch of flyers, no? I’d expect Choo to be sort of this year’s Sanchez, where they make a run, but the money gets too crazy and someone else gets him.
sitrickQuote Reply
Cubs sit at $74 million right now. If they just met their 2012 opening day payroll of $104 million, that’s $30 million to play with. Let’s assume that mlbtr has Choo exactly right (6 years, $100 million). You could sign Choo and Nolasco to the Edwin Jackson deal (Fangraphs projections is 4/48.3, so 4/52). That’s your whole payroll increase, but you replaced Ryan Sweeney with Shin-Soo Choo and Chris Rusin with Ricky Nolasco. Suddenly, a lineup that goes
Choo (L)
Castro (R)
Rizzo (L)
Castillo (R)
Valbuena (L)
Lake (R)
Schierholtz (L)
Olt (R)
P (X)
and a rotation that goes
Samardzija (R)
Wood (L)
Nolasco (R)
Jackson (R)
Baker/Arrieta/Grimm/Rusin/Raley/Negrin/Villanueva
doesn’t seem so bad. That lineup seems stinky, but it actually has a ton of upside, with Castro, Rizzo, Lake, and Olt all being breakout candidates. By midseason, you could even have Baez/Bryant/Alcantara knockind on the door, replacing whichever young pups have faltered.
MylesQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
Epstein –
“Unfortunately, you can’t provide your fans with what they deserve along the way, which is teams that play meaningful games all year long and play until October. So we just have to take a patient, long view. It’s a different experience.”
“It’s strange walking around the meetings and being a little irrelevant, because we’re not major players in some of these deals.”
Jed Hoyer (From BN) –
“We’re probably going to continue the way we have been, really trying to build up our base …. Where we are as an organization, we have a really bright future, and I think we’re a lot closer to winning a World Series than we were two years ago, but we don’t want to short-circuit that process ….”
Pat Mooney –
“While sources say the Cubs won’t be major players for the big free agents this winter – even doing another Edwin Jackson-type contract (four years, $52 million) is in doubt…”
I fully realize that the FO can say one thing and do another.
MylesQuote Reply
Or, let’s spend like the Dodgers, and just sign Choo/Ellsbury/Tanaka/Cano to AAVs of 17/20/23/30. That’s only $90 a year, which actually gets us $52 million a year UNDER the Dodgers, so go ahead and add Jimenez/Garza/Granderson at 13/13/13 AAV. Welp, still under by $13 million, so I guess save that money then.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Okay, I hadn’t seen that Mooney quote. That’s pretty damning.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Yeah, this is what I want. I certainly don’t expect it and if I was running things, it’s not even what I’d do, but as a fan, this is exactly what I want.
Better yet, go back 3 years, fuck the Wrigley renovation and announce you’ve decided to relocate. Accept bids and when Las Vegas bids $3.5 billion, start spending that on free agents. I don’t give a shit where the Cubs play.
Well, $3.5 billion minus the cost of a chain link fence to put up and use as the ballpark.
dmick89Quote Reply
fang2415 wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
fang2415 wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
Like You Care wrote:
This sounds like a crazy version of Back to the Future.
And is he supposed to make this announcement at a press conference or just send a release to the media?
Like You CareQuote Reply
Meh, that doesn’t look that great to me…Looks like an offense with one player that will get >3 WAR and a total of 13-17 WAR. Pitching staff is OK. No number 1. No clear number 2. Four number 3 starters. Besides Choo, which of the guys below is an impact guy?
Myles wrote:
SVBQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
This.
It isn’t even Thanksgiving yet. Let’s wait and see. If the bar is a Jackson contract and some pieces, that’s an easy mark. Bronson Arroyo, Bryan Peña, and some pieces. That doesn’t need to happen in the first week.
SVBQuote Reply
The only way to see if you have cornerstone players is to let players that might end up as them play. As to Valbuena and Olt, I’d say that Luis had a 95 wRC+ which is not nothing, and primarily it was a function of a decent OBP (so maybe he slots higher up if you don’t care about LRLRLRLR), and that Olt was, 12 months ago, considered a first-division 3B. There is definitely a chance that he ends up being a complete nothing, but I won’t accept it as fact until it’s tried, and the chance he rebounds and ends up providing some value is higher than I suspect most people think.
The argument isn’t that the above team is a playoff contender. The argument is that the above team COULD BE a playoff contender; furthermore, it has significantly fewer holes than the team that doesn’t sign an OF, and trades away it’s best pitcher instead of signing a decent one.
I also don’t like the argument that having 4 no. 3 is somehow worse than having an ace, 2 no. 3, and a no. 5 or something. At most, the ace throws 40 more innings than the typical no. 3 guy. He also costs twice as much if not more. I want to throw as many average-or-better innings out there as possible. Nolasco has a mid-3 FIP and around 185 IP average in his last 5 seasons. I’ll take him, thanks.
MylesQuote Reply
I have absolutely nothing to base this on, but I have a gut feeling that this is going to be an unusual year in the market generally and that’s going to make it really tough to judge anyone’s moves until the dust settles. It seems like there will be a few rogue teams that will disrupt the market, and I suspect that unlike other years that the big names will go very late in the process. The big guys aren’t always the first to go, but if I’m recalling correctly there is usually some sort of domino effect where the most sought-after go first and folks move on to plans B, C, and D as the offseason continues. The news about Cano planning to wait (and Boras’ representation of many of the big names that are up) seem to indicate that.
I’m not sure what that means for the Cubs. It might mean that they can sneak in at the end of the process and snag a surprise for less than you’d think. It also might mean that they’re going to sit out on the big names because they’ve identified that the market is not pricing them correctly. I think that the most likely outcome is that they will focus on finding near-term solutions that will erase some of the black holes and best leverage flawed assets (e.g. build platoons where they can) in a way that maintains long-term flexibility both in terms of payroll and in terms of their ability to dispose of guys that they’ve signed, and as much as I’d like to see them add a couple of impact pieces, I can’t argue with that approach.
Combining young talent with guys who fill specific gaps worked for a number of teams this year, and most notably the Red Sox, who added about 30 wins by signing a number of mid-level guys (Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, Drew, Dempster), getting a couple back from injuries (Lackey), and plugging in some kids. I wouldn’t expect the Cubs to be quite that aggressive, but they do have the luxury of having more young talent ready to go within the next two years than the vast majority of teams. Given the warts on the big names out there — Choo’s platoon issues, Ellsbury’s injury history, Tanaka’s lack of MLB experience — I don’t think you’re looking at any guys who are a sure thing. I’d love to see them take a run at all three of them, but like I said, I can’t fault them if they don’t, especially if the market is skewed by a few drunken sailors.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
Yep. And you’re in good company. Like I said above, the ‘smart’ front offices are looking more and more towards avoiding black holes than adding plus pieces.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
You did that on purpose.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Like you care.
uncle daveQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
I don’t think Amaro got this memo (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
uncle, dave.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Clearly. (dying laughing). He’s done a great job negotiating against himself.
By the way, on the strategy of signing young guys to long contracts–that was the MO of the Indians of the 90s–Albert Belle, Carlos Baerga, etc. Worked for them, until they did it with Grady Sizemore. That backfired. Anyway, it’s not a new strategy, but it seems to be more widely practiced.
Myles wrote:
I don’t disagree with this one bit. I’d like to see what Olt, Rizzo, Castro and Lake could do. I believe we already know what Valbuena can do and that we’ve seen his very best, which is bench depth. While that line up could be above average, I suspect it won’t be. I’ll take 72 wins for the over/under. I’m OK with that for this season since it appears the farm has promise. I think signing Choo or Ellsbury makes a lot of sense and I hope the Cubs do it. But I read comments above to suggest that this line up would be pretty good and if the Cubs don’t go out and sign at least a couple of high end FAs, they are failing. I just don’t believe that, because I don’t think the depth in the line up is there, nor in the pitching staff. I’d rather have 5 #3 starters than 1 ace, a 2 and three 4s. Because in my mind a 3 should win at least half the games. A 4 is a pitcher that you are happy if he does win half. But a staff of 3s is still a mediocre team.
Let the kids play, which I agree with, appears to run counter to the “Cubs have to sign premium FAs this year because they can compete” argument (and the basis of a hatchet job article) because they don’t have the players to win more than 72 games now, and adding Choo and a top pitcher isn’t going to get them to the playoffs. I agree they should add some FAs because it is easier to do so incrementally than all at once, and they should improve the team to set them up better for 2015. But, I think there is no possibility that the Cubs can be better than an 81-win team in 2014, even in the best case scenario. If the Cubs can’t get FA help in the OF and at SP/RP, then they shouldn’t bother unless they are getting a really good deal, because the farm should fill the IF positions.
Despite my pessimistic view of potential 2014 wins above, it’s not that I’m always a pessimist. Remember, I argued last spring that Hendricks, Rademacher, and Ha could be useful big-leaguers, if all goes right. Either that makes me optimistic or unrealistic, or just stupid. (dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
That is the conundrum of the marathon season vs. the SSS of the post-season.
One knock on the Braves pitching was that outside of Smoltz, none of them were flame-throwing dominators and were susceptible to the better teams they ran into in the playoffs. Maybe it was sequencing or whatever, but the Braves always had the best 1-5 in the league and they won the WS once.
Meanwhile, the Diamondbacks rode Johnson and Schilling to the same number of World Series titles in a shorter period of time.
Does it conclusively prove anything? No. But it is something to consider when constructing a roster. The Cubs would do well now to just be strong across the full 5-man rotation, but the next step would ideally be someone at the top of the rotation that could consistently match up with the Kershaws, Wainwrights, Verlanders, etc. of the world in a short series.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I know we often talk about number 1, 2, 3 and so on for pitchers, but I don’t think we have a very good grasp of what that is. For one thing, it’s entirely subjective and it also doesn’t match reality. If pitchers fit into one of those numbers, there has to be enough pitchers to go around. There has to be 30 number 1 pitchers, but comparing the 30th number 1 to the best pitcher is really kind of pointless. The best pitcher is better than the all the others and quite a bit better than the 30th best pitcher. If you have five number 3’s and those pitchers are the 61st, 62nd, 63rd, 64th and 65h best pitchers in the league, you’ve got a pretty good rotation there. It’s drastically different than one that has five guys tied for 86th best, which would be well below average starting pitching. Ask around and you’ll find that people, when asked to loosely define or name number 1s, will name 5 to 10 pitchers. Maybe the next 15 or so are number 2s.
Not to mention, we have better metrics. ERA tells us more than whether a pitcher is a number 1. That’s especially true over a large enough sample.
As for postseason, there are probably as many examples of the lesser talented pitching staff winning (Red Sox over Cardinals this year).
Lastly, the idea that Jeff Samardzija is just a number 3 is silly and this coming from someone who doesn’t think much of the guy.
Over the last 2 years (qualified starters):
FIP: 30th
xFIP: 18th
K-BB%: 15th
I highlighted the last one because if you really wanted to look at one stat for pitchers, that’s it (IMO). Is that a number 1? I don’t know. Depends entirely on how you define it. Is that a good pitcher? Yes, and that doesn’t depend on how you define it. A great pitcher? No.
If you want 2 or 3 starters better than Jeff Samardzija, you want a larger payroll than I do and I want the Cubs to spend a lot of money. If those guys are dirt cheap, great, but that’s just usually not how it works and the Cubs have nobody in their system right now that I’m the least bit confident of even becoming as good as Samardzija.
dmick89Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
While not a flamethrower, I’m not sure Maddux can be described as another other than a dominator. I think the Braves run can be chalked up more to it being difficult to win a World Series. That and the lack of Bob Brenly.
JasonQuote Reply
@ Jason:
He had a 3.27 ERA in the postseason, but was only 11-14. His non-Cubs postseason ERA (all but 2 games) was 2.88. From what I recall, the Braves offense always fell asleep in the postseason.
He had a 2.09 ERA in the WS in 5 starts.
Interestingly, his two worst starts were both with the Cubs. In the ’89 LCS he gave up 8 runs in 4 innings in one start and in his other start he gave up 4 runs in 3.1 innings.
Overall, in 7 of his 35 postseason games, he gave up 4 or more runs. In 8 starts he gave up 1 or 0 runs.
This is interesting to me. For some reason, I remembered Maddux as pitching kind of poorly in the postseason. Obviously I’m not the only one, but take away the two Cubs starts and he was really good.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
dmick89 wrote:
I think this has as much to do with the fact that he didn’t ‘step up’ his game in the post-season, or have the ‘fire’, #rig, whatever you want to call it. His career regular season ERA was 3.16 (744 G, 5008.1 IP), and his postseason was previously mentioned to be 3.27 (35 G, 198.0 IP). I feel like it’s safe to say he was just as good, if not better due to the level of competition improving in the playoffs. That said, his first post-season appearance may have colored some perceptions on him as well. Also, he wasn’t a fireballer, and more relied on movement/velocity changes. Oftentimes these are the things that stick out in the public consciousness more than actual results.
I actually thought the same until you mentioned him and I started looking things up about him.
SamQuote Reply
Holy shit, 9.6 WAR in a 144 game season. He was good.
And 8.7 WAR in 114 games.
SamQuote Reply
Where the Cubs should spend money this offseason is on RPs who stay healthy and have low walk rates. I can imagine the FO doesn’t want to spend on this until it’s time to compete, given the price/innings ratio compared to SP, and that makes sense given the budget and upside to signing guys like Feldman and Maholm. But I hope they don’t field an entire pen from homegrown guys. After Strop (not homegrown), I don’t know who is trustworthy on the roster. Not sure about Fujikawa. Russell declined hard. Parker and Rosscup have a chance, and then it’s the guys who couldn’t crack the rotation. Bullpen could be an abject disaster, which could severely hinder any progress the lineup and rotation make.
I am not sure if advanced stats back it up, but I doubt it’s good for the clubhouse when you use 31 (!) different pitchers in a season (or 56 total players). It doesn’t make the manager’s job any easier. I doubt it’s good for morale. Maybe it’s worth something to try to stay competitive until August. Castro and Rizzo need to eventually play in games that sort of matter. How do they feel when Hector Rondon enters a ballgame? I have a feeling the position players know who’s good and who sucks. Maybe Castro has been having a steak dinner, three glasses of scotch, and taking a girl home the night before every day game. Maybe he doesn’t do that if the game is worth a shit. Hey, he got paid, why not enjoy life, and wait until the games matter to start caring? ::CONJECTURE::
Is it possible the guys who are called up to the Cardinals and are basically always good, if not somehow all-star caliber right away, are being groomed better and feel a greater sense of responsibility to their teammates? Maybe they are having a substantially different MLB experience. Do they behave better? Do the Cubs behave badly? Isn’t that something the FO needs to think about? It would be nice to know about as a fan. And even then, sometimes there’s a Patrick Kane who helps you win a championship anyway.
Any chance we can get a breakdown of some possible RP candidates? Because the Cubs used 31 pitchers last year, and I don’t think that’s a winning formula. Continuity seems like a good thing.
JQuote Reply
[img]http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/picdump-970-3.jpg[/img]
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Yes, that does improve your look, SK.
SVBQuote Reply
Josh Johnson ———–> SD
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ J:
Maybe Starlin just was never as good as we originally thought? Maybe it was nothing to do with “a culture of winning” and our team is just fucking bad?
AkabariQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
pretty cheap. I thought the cubs might be in at that price.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
I’m surprised they weren’t. $8 million plus incentives for one year. What’s not to like about that deal?
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I said that. I think he’s become overrated. As a starter in 2012 he was underrated and it took most people a long time to warm up to him as legit. I think folks have now swung too far on the optimistic side and that 2012 was his peak.
Continuing your stats over last two years, then just last year.
FIP 30th 2013 47th
xFIP 18th 2013 22nd
K-BB% 15th 2013 (not sure, but 19th in K% and 65th in BB% of 79 qualifiers on Fangraphs: see WHIP)
WAR 32nd, last year 45th
WHIP 47th, last year 65th
61st of 128 qualifiers in %QS in 2013 (BRef)
Maybe he’s a number 2 starter. He ranks between 31-60 on most things. Is he a dominant #1 type pitcher? No. If his performance changes next year, does he become more like a number 1 or a number 3? I think the likelihood is that he slides toward a 3, but I hope I’m wrong. The trends in the stats are that 2013 was not as good as 2012, whether that is random walk or a real trend, I don’t know.
Anyway, my whole point in this thread is that the Cubs aren’t going to be that good next year, the FA class is weak, and the optimism around a starting line-up like Myles posted above is probably unrealistic. Even if the Cubs signed Choo, Ellsbury, Cano, and Nolasco, they still have numerous holes. Maybe if they did sign all those guys, the kids at AA could fill in well in 2015 and they’d have a good team. But they could probably do as well by using last year’s strategy and going for a few mid level FA signings instead.
Also remember that Theo’s track record on big time FAs is not nearly as good as with trades. Let’s be careful what we wish for, so we don’t get Carl Crawford.
SVBQuote Reply
Very good article: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-slow-decline-of-speedy-outfielders/
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Great deal for SD. MLBTR says personal reasons gave SD a discount. I think he’s from the area. Also a giant stadium to pitch in.
SVBQuote Reply
I don’t remember this, but it’s awesome: http://espn.go.com/columns/kreidler/1354123.html
dmick89Quote Reply
@ SVB:
You have to include 2012. We should probably just look at the projections and he still ranks as an above average starter.
My point was that classifying starters as 1, 2, 3 and so on is really kind of dumb. I’ve done it many times, but I try not to. It has no real value and when you consider the other metrics we have, it’s pointless.
Finally, it’s most certainly true that fans have no real idea what those numbers even are when they’re talking about it. I remember THT doing the research a few years back (offense was higher), but even a pitcher like Jason Marquis was solidly in the number 4 camp. Number 5s were below replacement level.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Excellent article–
(dying laughing) Comment
Greg Luzinski says:
November 19, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Dave, will there be a follow up on “The Speedy Decline of Slow Outfielders”?
SVBQuote Reply
wut?
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZhrXsqCUAAYTZR.jpg[/img]
Like You CareQuote Reply
Is that SI cover question for real?
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
I think SK photoshopped it to put in front of his face because he was getting hit on too much as an Afghani woman.
@ dmick89:
The good old days when a 4.5M salary seemed important. ha ha.
SVBQuote Reply
And if so, the best what ever?
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Though to be precise, Wertheim doesn’t say best WHAT.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
@ Like You Care:
damnit
SVBQuote Reply
Best Alabama QB ever? I hope that’s what they mean.
Ryno, what do you think of the NFL grading site PFF?
MuckerQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
Too slow.
Mucker wrote:
I’d give that to Joe Namath. I think they mean he’s the best McCarron to play QB at Alabama.
Like You CareQuote Reply
I like how the site crashed after I posted that SI cover. OV was like “Fuck that shit.”
Like You CareQuote Reply
Like You Care wrote:
Maybe they meant the best A.J.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Mucker wrote:
I think their work is legit because, even though it’s statistical, it’s based on observing. They have several people devoted to every play by each player, iirc, and they’re really good at what they do.
The only thing I don’t like about their grades is that it is based totally on their interpretation of a result. For example: If a running back doesn’t chip an OLB he’s supposed to and that OLB gets a sack, they might assign negative value to the OT and nothing to the RB. Or maybe the RB didn’t chip because the QB failed to recognize the OLB as a blitzer and didn’t instruct the RB.
I would assume those guys are pros and can tell what everyone’s assignment is on a given play, but that’s a LOT of context on each play.
Basically, I like using the PFF grades to adjust my opinion based on what I saw.
Like You CareQuote Reply
[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/br-cdn/temp_images/2013/11/18/DrewBreesHit.gif[/img]
Tackle midget QB at the collarbone –> 15 yard penalty, $16,000 fine.
[img]http://i.minus.com/ibyYQNKnW64S9Y.gif[/img]
Cut block DT and break his leg –> Cut blocks are legal, so deal with it.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
He’s not better at AJ Pierzynski.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
That’s pretty much what I do. I watch a game and I’ll say “Man, I thought Kyle Long had a great game today” then I’ll look to see what PFF said and see what I missed or if they thought differently. But I think it’s a very interesting site.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Worst…..Call……Ever. Are defenders now supposed to slow down before they tackle a QB?
MuckerQuote Reply
Mucker wrote:
I think it’s a great site for the casual fan who wants to learn more about the game. When you’re surprised by a ranking and can go back and see why, you pick up on the intricacies of the game. There is SO MUCH happening on every play that 95% of viewers don’t see.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Objectively, I think it was a bad call too (obviously), but I don’t have too much of a problem with a ref making that call when watching live. Fining Brooks, though, is bullshit.
I love football, but the rules are ridiculous. The Brooks-Brees hit is a penalty and a fine, but diving at a player’s knees and injuring him for the season is just fine.
You can fumble the football after 1 cm of it crosses the goalline and it’s a TD. If you catch a ball in the endzone, land with two feet in bounds, fall to the ground and then put the ball down while getting up, though, it’s NOT a TD.
Like You CareQuote Reply
Like You Care wrote:
That makes no fucking sense to me. I hate that rulling. I also hate that a player can be picked up and moved forwards and it counts, but push him backwards and it’s down where he was originally.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
I think the Brees hit looked so much worse because he got hit so hard. Brooks’ initial contact is at Brees’ upper chest and then kind of slides up into his neck area. But I agree, the rules are terrible and they benefit the offense. That’s a very big reason why there’s been over four 5,000 yard passing seasons in the past two years and there were only 2 in the first 85 or so years.
MuckerQuote Reply
WaLi wrote:
Speaking of being picked up…
[img]http://www.csnbayarea.com/sites/csnbayarea/files/miller_bruce_2.jpg[/img]
That’s not holding, apparently, because two BAL players were holding and they didn’t take him to the ground. It’s holding if either BAL player is removed, though. WTF?
Like You CareQuote Reply
Since we’re on the subject of non-calls in the Super Bowl, how about this play right before Crabtree “wasn’t” held on 4th down?
[img]http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/helmetgraham1.gif[/img]
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Exploit the rules if you can, but I think we’re seeing the return of the Power O.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
So…
Like You CareQuote Reply
How about the newest ridiculous rule: Targeting.
[img]http://cdn1.sbnation.com/assets/3533457/baylorBEAR.gif[/img]
If you didn’t watch Baylor/OU a few weeks ago, the above play was called targeting, Baylor was penalized 15 yards and No. 8 was ejected. Then Baylor SS Ahmad Dixon (who I think will be SF’s starting SS next season) was so enraged by the call that he took off his helmet and yelled at the official, which netted them two additional personal fouls. You’re supposed to keep your cool there, but come one, man.
The officials reviewed the play and came to their senses. They said it was NOT targeting, so No. 8 was NOT ejected. However, the 15 yard penalty and subsequent personal fouls were still tacked onto the play.
Long story short, OU failed to complete a pass but went from midfield to the Baylor 7 because the Baylor DB leaned into a player running right at him.
Like You CareQuote Reply
I feel much better about posting all this football bullshit with my new username.
Like You CareQuote Reply
Damn, Oscar Tavares isn’t going to be available in the Rule 5 draft. The Cubs offseason plans are ruined!
BerseliusQuote Reply
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Is that your church?
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
No, mine’s bigger.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
[img]http://rlv.zcache.com/your_mom_likes_this_facebook_status_update_bumper_sticker-r66890ffa49c24fc38edf98b7ec12b694_v9wht_8byvr_324.jpg[/img]
Like You CareQuote Reply
Hmm… That’s a pretty bad cum record.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
18 to 42 what? Gallons? Yards?
GBTSQuote Reply
Like You Care wrote:
That’s what I don’t understand about the review. I get reviewing the ejection, but if he isn’t ejected then it isn’t targeting so why the penalty? Makes no fucking sense.
WaLiQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
Or age?
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
You can’t make sense of it.
Like You CareQuote Reply
the rule that drives me crazy involves punts downed close to the goal line. everywhere else on the field, the ball is dead when the punting team touches it, but somehow that changes inside the ten, and it remains live if it goes into the end zone.
just once, i’d like to see a member of the punting team go up to an untouched punt at the 25 or 30 yard line and boot it into the end zone, just to see how the refs would handle it.
GWQuote Reply
It makes me happy that more and more intelligent people are also realizing that the NFL is now arbitrary and stupid.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
maybe best QB to play for Nick Saban ever
Tony Banks
Bill Burke
Josh Booty
Matt Mauck
Matt Flynn
JaMarcus Russell
Greg McElroy
John Parker Wilson
some dude at Toledo that no one remembers
Or maybe the best catch of Nick Saban jumping into a QB’s arms ever.
Or possibly best at being able to camouflage picking his nose while on the sidelines of a nationally televised game ever.
SVBQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That’s why I watch NCAA football instead. They are never arbitrary or stupid.
SVBQuote Reply
Jeff Samardzija will not only sign but also serve out his extension before this thread is replaced.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Texas-Tigers discussing Kinsler-Fielder swap. crazy
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
and now its done. fielder was signed 2 years ago to a 9 year, 200+MM dollar deal and gets traded after 2 seasons. strange world out there.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
@ Recalcitrant Blogger Nate:
Even stranger, it looks like a win for both teams.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Strange that Fielder waived his NTC to leave a team that was just in the World Series.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Recalcitrant Blogger Nate:
It’s clearly a world where trading huge contracts is no longer a big deal. That’s whats weird. 3 years ago that was almost unthinkable. Now it’s happened to a few players two years in a row.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Yeah, this is about the extension talks between the teams in 5 years. You heard it here first.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
Perhaps. Rangers aren’t that far off themselves. And his numbers should get a bump hitting in that bandbox in Arlington.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Ernie Banks was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom today in DC. He was in pretty good company.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/20/obama-to-honor-16-people-with-presidential-medal-of-freedom/?hpt=po_c1
SVBQuote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I think they sign Beltran or McCann and run out this lineup:
SS – Andrus
RF – Beltran
1B – Fielder
3B – Beltre
LF – Rios
C – Soto
DH – Moreland
2B – Profar
CF – Gentry
or
SS – Andrus
RF – Martin
1B – Fielder
3B – Beltre
C – McCann
LF – Rios
DH – Moreland
2B – Profar
CF – Gentry
Like You CareQuote Reply
Ballsy move for texas given the way fat guys’ bats tend to fall off a cliff once the decline starts. But at least they can give Profar a full time job now and don’t have to worry about how gross Kinsler’s bat might look as a 1B.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
The reason I still prefer football to baseball is that football has the chance to be logical. The outcome in football is inherently more predicated on ability than baseball, which relies more on luck, imo. The football team that plays better wins more often than the baseball team that plays better, if that makes sense.
Like You CareQuote Reply
All this Texas trade talk has reminded me that Elvis Andrus is still owed like $125 million.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I’ve probably said it before, but the original recording of your username is one of the peaks of western civilization.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
They’re banking on his vegetarian diet kicking in any day now.
Like You CareQuote Reply
New Shit
http://obstructedview.net/facepalm/semi-annual-facepalm-11-21-2013.html
MylesQuote Reply