DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113975--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: brjones Date: January 16, 2013, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Today on a Fangraphs chat, Dave Cameron speculated that Michael
Bourn will get 3 years, $42 million. Now, as far as I know,
Cameron has no real connections with any front office or
anything...so you have to take that with a huge grain of salt.
Still, I've never been a huge Bourn fan...but if that's the
price, the Cubs have to be all over it, don't they?
#Post#: 113977--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: davep Date: January 16, 2013, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely not. Why give up a top second round draft choice for
someone that will be of little help, and will be obsolete in two
years.
#Post#: 113983--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: brjones Date: January 16, 2013, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Because unless he implodes, he can be traded for something
better than a second round draft pick in a year or two?
#Post#: 113986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: January 16, 2013, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deeg link=topic=90.msg113969#msg113969
date=1358383306]
Why are we shopping Garza? Because our system is still woefully
short on pitching, and he's the most marketable asset we have.
And one of two things will happen if we keep him to help us try
and win 75 games this year: he'll have another injury-plagued
year, or he'll have a rebound year and get a contract Ricketts
may not want to match.
[/quote]
Those who did not grasp that before still won't.
#Post#: 113995--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: CurtOne Date: January 16, 2013, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=brjones link=topic=90.msg113983#msg113983
date=1358385792]
Because unless he implodes, he can be traded for something
better than a second round draft pick in a year or two?
[/quote]
I don't agree with br often, but...
Hoyerstein has repeatedly stated that they are looking for
assets. They may not be looking at Bourn as part of the long
term plan but as another trading chip this summer.
#Post#: 113996--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Deeg Date: January 16, 2013, 8:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No one will trade you a bucket of warm feces for $28 million and
two years of Bourn after this season.
#Post#: 114004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: January 16, 2013, 10:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deeg link=topic=90.msg113996#msg113996
date=1358390600]
No one will trade you a bucket of warm feces for $28 million and
two years of Bourn after this season.
[/quote]
Not limiting it to Bourn, but instead any quality free agent,
and using Bourn as an example -- considering the premium which
appears to be attached to premium prospects under the current
bonus rules for prospects, an effort to trade Bourn (or someone
like him) need not involve a straight trade of talent for
talent. The contracts are also a major issue. So a team like
the Cubs, with money, and a desire to build a large young talent
pool, might well overpay the veteran FA in order to later eat a
large share of his remaining contract while trading him for good
prospects.... meaning the issue of what team might be willing to
pay the later years of his contract if the signing team wants to
trade him would be a non-issue.
It will be quite surprising if this is not being done within the
next year, perhaps actually even increasing the cost of young
talent acquisition for MLB teams, but with the money going to
veteran players such as Bourn instead of to young kids out of HS
or college or on the dirt fields of the Dominican.
The players union will unquestionably like it. Smaller market
teams would not have their costs go up, and the deep pocket
teams such as the Cubs who might do this certainly won't
complain.
The ones short-changed in t he process will be prospects.... and
MLB has shown it doesn't really give a rat about them anyway.
#Post#: 114032--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: JR Date: January 17, 2013, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Old fart, just sent you a reply.
#Post#: 114061--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: davep Date: January 17, 2013, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got it, JR.
#Post#: 114133--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: brjones Date: January 17, 2013, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One guy I had forgotten was out there but might be a good fit
for the Cubs bench is Ryan Raburn. He was terrible in 2012
(.480 OPS), so he might be done...but that also means he might
come cheap. And before 2012, he was a career .269/.323/.456
hitter (and even better than that against LHP). He can play all
over the field--he has mainly played 2B, but he could fill the
Cubs' needs as a RH backup on any of the four corner positions.
Maybe he'd end up being awful, but his versatility seems to fill
in several holes where the Cubs need a warm body.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page