Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports has a new notes column that contains quite a few Hot Stove related items. Some highlights from his latest piece…
- There’s a belief in the industry that the Cardinals’ new television deal — which begins in 2018, when it will net the team $50MM and continue to rise to about $86MM, per Forbes — could allow the team to sign two premium free agents. Rosenthal adds, though, that the Cardinals could nonetheless be uncomfortable making the top bid for David Price or Jason Heyward and might be “reluctant” to commit the type of dollars Chris Davis will command.
- Meanwhile, the Cubs probably only have the financial firepower to add about $20MM to their annual payroll this winter. Sources tell Rosenthal that the club’s payroll will be in the $130-140MM range for the foreseeable future. Based on the numbers at Cot’s Contracts and MLBTR’s arbitration projections, the Cubs are a bit over $110MM in 2016 when including league-minimum players. That leaves some wiggle room for two adds, but probably not if one of those players is Price or Zack Greinke. Rosenthal notes that the Cubs could add a young pitcher via trade, possibly for Jorge Soler. That wouldn’t impact payroll much in the near-term and would free the club to pursue Heyward or Alex Gordon to reduce the team’s overall strikeout rate (and improve the outfield defense).
- The Dodgers have at least discussed the possibility of signing both Greinke and Price internally, according to Rosenthal, but they’re unlikely to go that route. Even the Dodgers and their seemingly limitless budget aren’t keen on the notion of paying three starters in the vicinity of $30MM annually, and they already have one such pitcher in Clayton Kershaw.
- That J.A. Happ landed a $36MM total from the Blue Jays could serve to increase the leverage that teams like the Indians and Rays have in talks for their starting pitchers. One exec told Rosenthal that “mediocre pitching” now costs a minimum of $30MM total. While that’s true enough, I don’t know that the Happ signing necessarily brought that realization about. We’ve seen players like Jason Hammel, Jason Vargas and Ricky Nolasco clear the $30MM barrier in recent seasons, after all, and Happ’s final push in Pittsburgh shows he’s at least capable of pitching at a high level if those adjustments can be sustained.
- The D-Backs’ interest in Johnny Cueto stems, in part, from the fact that he’s not tied to draft pick compensation. Arizona selects 13th overall next season and values that pick, Rosenthal writes. The team is reluctant to part with one of the top overall unprotected picks and probably isn’t likely to part with it for a second-tier starter (e.g. Jeff Samardzija, Wei-Yin Chen). Arizona has already been tied to both Mike Leake and Kenta Maeda, either of whom could bolster the rotation without harming next year’s draft.
- The Padres are still receiving plenty of interest in right-hander Tyson Ross but are only willing to move him for a “monster package,” as Rosenthal terms it. Ross is controlled for two more seasons, and MLBTR projects him to earn $10MM in 2016.
- Prior to Colby Rasmus accepting their qualifying offer, the Astros considered making a run at Brett Gardner or a similar type of player to fill the club’s leadoff slot, per Rosenthal. Now, however, they’ll likely use Jose Altuve there as the primary option again in 2016.
justinept
I still contend that the smartest course of action for the Cubs is to sign Heyward, and then to trade Soler and Baez in separate deals for pitching – with the latter being in more of a package deal w/ other prospects (McKinney, Edwards, Candalerio, etc) That should be more than enough for the Cubs to land two of the quality, cost-controlled arms on the market right now (Miller, Teheran, Salazar, or possibly even Quintana if the White Sox choose to deal from their depth.)
Right now, the Cubs have a few issues. They simply can’t go into the 2016 postseason with only two starters capable of throwing 6 innings. They need to acquire at least 1 legitimate starter, and possibly two. And they need to find a way to do this without breaking the bank because they’re going to have to pay Arrieta within the next two years. Personally, I don’t see how they can find a way to keep Arrieta in the fold come 2018 if they bring in Price — but then, 1) I’m not paid to make that decision and 2) Maybe Epstein is more concerned about 2016 and 2017 than he is about 2018…
Even if the Cubs decided they wanted a third ace, as opposed to having a high-quality 3 and 4 starter, then a package of Soler, Baez, McKinney, Edwards and Candelario could possibly get Miami or Oakland’s attention in a potential Jose Fernandez or Sonny Gray swap.
dancinginpdx
Totally agree. I struggle with the idea of getting older in the starting rotation by adding anyone that’s already over 30, when we already have 3 SPs of that age. As for affording Arrieta’s FA payday, we can, even if we do sign Price or Heyward. After 2016 Edwin Jackson’s final $13M is done. And then after 2017 Montero’s $12M/year contract is over, and presumably he’s replaced by a very cheap Contreras. That’s $25M we’ll have freed up.
John Murray
If you’re signing Jason Heyward, you’re spending more than it would cost to sign either Samardzija or Leake. I don’t see the logic of trading a young player that’s a key part of a young loaded team that just won 95 games in order to sign another player. When you’ve had success, you tweak and add, not shuffle. Having two front end starters that can consistently go 7 innings is better than most teams in baseball, so signing a mid-range starter and a couple of minor bullpen pieces should be sufficient for the Cubbies. When you’ve won 95 games and everyone is coming back (unlike the Cards and Pirates) – you should stay the course.
justinept
We completely disagree on the Cubs needs…
1) Soler was NOT a key component to the Cubs winning 97 games last year. He has a ton of potential to help them – or another team – in the future, and he flashed a lot of that potential in the St. Louis series. But the fact is that he only had 400 plate appearances a year ago and finished with a .723 OPS. The Cubs winning percentage in their 67 games without Soler was almost identical to their winning percentage with Soler (.602 with vs .582 without – which comes to a 1-game difference.)
2) JA Happ just received a $12 million AAV, and he’s terrible. Jordan Zimmerman is a quality middle of the rotation type pitcher, and he just received a $22 million AAV. Given those two figures, expect Samardzija and Leake to receive somewhere between $16-18 million per year. So let me ask – Would you rather have Heyward (6.0 WAR) in RF and Shelby Miller (3.45 xFIP; 3.4 WAR) in the middle of the rotation or would you prefer Soler (1.2 WAR) and either Mike Leake (3.93 xFIP; 1.7 WAR) or Jeff Samardzija (4.31 xFIP; 2.7 WAR) in the middle of the rotation?
Keep in mind, Soler is making $3.7 million this coming season. Miller isn’t yet arbitration eligible and will likely receive no more than $600,000. If Leake and Samardzija receives $17 million per year (likely) and Heyward receives $20 million (likely), then the money is identical…
3) After losing in the ALCS in 2003, Theo Epstein fired his manager and went to insane lengths to trade for Curt Schilling. He also attempted to trade both Manny Ramirez and Nomar Garciaparra in a deal that was ultimately rejected by the MLBPA before finally shipping out Nomar at the deadline. The point here is that ‘tweaking’ is not the only way to go about things…
chicubbies1
.582 x 162 = 94.284 wins
.602 x 162 = 97.524 wins
that’s a 3 win difference, not the 1 you claim it to be. Which is more proof for me at least why “WAR” is such a lame wannabe stat. Soler supposedly had a 1.2 WAR, yet the team without him was on pace for 94 wins. Had he stayed in the lineup all year they’d win 97-98. I digress though.
I wouldn’t mind seeing them sign Heyward on a deal that pays out $18-20M aav. You know it will be near a 10 year deal with an opt out clause after 5 years, after his age 30 season. So really, pending an epic downswing in his career or a laundry list of injuries it would be more like a 5 year deal….. I can handle that. Heyward is just entering his prime. He still has 20+ HR potential and can steal around 20 bases all while owning a very healthy OBP and hitting about .270-.290 every year. Getting that production from you lead off guy…. stellar. I think it is crucial they land a solid lead off hitter to set the table for the likes of Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant…. Soler…. Castro/Baez. Heyward also plays excellent defense which is another perk. Is he worth nearly $20M annually??? Probably not, but that $20M is not only buying a good lead-off hitter and solid defense, it is also buying piece of mind at that position and lineup spot for at least half a decade. I have a hard time believing the Cubs will cap out at $140M in payroll for next year just going by what Hoyer and Theo said immediately following the season with their goals to add a couple QUALITY starting pitchers and a starting CFer. Unless their definition of quality is completely different from everyone else’s that to me sounds like at least $30-35M right there in payroll addition alone on the rotation. Sign Price…. Sign Heyward. trade Castro, Almora, Vogelbach, and Candelario for Jose Quintana. Trade Hammel for a quality reliever. That gives you two SPs in Price and Quintana and the ideal CF option in Heyward for years to come. All while keeping the payroll around $145-150M for next year….. $160 TOPS. But if that is what you can get, what’s an extra $10-15 million to a family worth a billion dollars for a team valued at $1.8 billion. They could also backload the deal for heyward so it only pays him 10-12 million in 2016. 14-16M in 2017. and so on. By the time 2020 gets here the Cubs will likely have their own billion dollar TV deal and their payroll will likely shoot up to $200-250M anyways. They just jacked up the ticket prices by a ton too and morons will likely flood Wrigley all year in 2016…… they can afford a $150M payroll in 2016.
Larry D.
The Cubs have been clear that they plan on fielding a contender every season and that the way they will get that done is by keeping the developmental levels of the organization stocked with young talent. While the Cubs might consider dealing a player where they have some depth, they will not being making a 3 or 4 player swap. It is clear that the Cubs need help in the rotation and they have to address the possible departure of Dexter Fowler but I can not foresee them replacing Fowler with a large contract player. Their focus has to be (and is) a top tier starter. Any trades the Cubs make will be 2nd tier prospects for pitching prospects.
justinept
The Cubs plan to contend every season for the foreseeable future because Kris Bryant, Kyle Schwarber, Anthony Rizzo and Addison Russell are stud players under the age of 26-years old who are locked into long-term deals. That’s the core of this team and will remain the core moving forward. The idea that they have good, young players in the minor leagues means little past the point of potential trades right now because:
YOU CAN’T JUST HOARD PLAYERS IN THE MINORS.
The Rule-5 Draft and option years prevent that from happening. And given how young the core of this team is, there just doesn’t figure to be a spot open for a number of guys including Billy McKinney and Jeimer Candelario. Additionally, a prospect like Torres will need a spot soon, and given the presence of Baez and Castro on the big league roster, it’s uncertain how he’ll find one unless one of those guys is dealt…
But here are some interesting questions to consider:
1) Would you prefer to trade Castro for salary relief or Baez as part of a package that brings back a quality, cost-controlled pitcher?
2) Do you want the Cubs to spend $30 million on Price or Greinke… or $25 million on Cueto?
3) If no, then would you prefer to spend $18 million on Samardzija or Leake?
4) If no again, how do you think this team is going to acquire pitching?
chicubbies1
With Russell, Bryant, Rizzo, Soler, Schwarber, and Castro/Baez clogging up 6 of the 8 positions on the field for at least another 5-6 years it makes no sense to hoard position players in the minors just to watch them rot away down there. It’s not fair to the Cubs or the minor league player in question. Take Vogelbach. He gets no love whatsoever, yet he is still one of the top ranked 1B prospects in the game. He will NEVER get a chance on the Cubs barring Rizzo spontaneously exploding. Candelario will never get a shot at 3B seeing as Bryant looks to be the real deal. Gleyber Torres might never get a chance if Russell and Baez turn into the players we all think (hope) they’ll be in 2016. The Cubs currently have Castro, Russell, Baez, and Torres all of which have high ceilings and all 26 or younger, but for only 2 positions. No need to hold onto all 4 if 1 or 2 can net you a top of the rotation starter. The plan is to be a contender every year. And yes the strategy to do that is by having a fully stocked farm system. But that also means BECAUSE OF that fully stocked system at all times you use that system to trade for current needs. Farm systems help you contend multiple ways and producing major league talent for your team is just one of those ways. Trade chips my friend. Trade chips.
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
YOU FORGOT SCHWARBER IN THAT LAST PACKAGE!
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
Schwarber needs to be locked up not traded. That would be like Micheal Jordan getting traded after the first 3peat instead of turning to baseball
jd396
If the Dodgers end up signing both Greinke and Price, paying close to $100m/yr for their 1-3 starters, when there’s multiple teams that had less than $200m in revenue for the year, and quite a few just over $200m, for the sake of keeping the league as competitive as its been the last few years it’s time for a hard salary cap and some serious Marxist income redistribution within the league.
BlueSkyLA
For the Dodgers it’s pretty obviously either/or on Grienke and Price. As for more revenue sharing, it’s sorely needed, but hardly “marxist.” The teams are the owners of MLB. It’s one business with 30 franchises. They can share revenue any way they choose.
jd396
It’s more than franchises in a business sense. The owners/ownership groups “own” the teams. We have a very traditionally healthy league in the sense that the ownership keeps their spats to themselves within the league structure for the most part (BAL vs. WAS TV court battles being the only meaningful exception in recent memory).
The problem with revenue sharing from an ownership perspective is telling Werner and Henry in Boston for example that they have to part with large portions of their revenue from their global multimedia sports empire with the Rays or whoever.
BlueSkyLA
Just as a restaurant franchisee “owns” their own store, but entirely under the terms set by the parent company. But even less so in baseball, since none of the 30 teams can exist without the other 29, and they work as one business unit on issues such as revenue sharing, collective bargaining, etc. The problem with revenue sharing comes entirely from the owners in big media markets who naturally want to protect as much as of their inherent advantage as possible. That does not make it good for the game.
jd396
That’s the thing though, they can exist without the other 29 teams — several of them predate the existence of the league, and it’s only been since 2000 that the AL and NL merged into one business entity. It’s beyond unlikely at this point but if we had a legitimate rival league scenario like the other major sports have seen in the past it’d be interesting to see how the teams and league dealt with it.
Anyway that’s tangential to the discussion about revenue sharing.
BlueSkyLA
Not sure it really is tangential. The other pro sports have somehow avoided the huge revenue imbalances between the teams found in baseball. Even as a fan of the currently richest team in the game, I think this situation is fundamentally unfair. It’s entirely within the power of MLB to change this. The missing ingredient is the will to change it.
jd396
It comes down to the individual owners wanting to do something about it.
I’m far from a doctor of economics or whatever so I don’t have any illusions of coming up with a bulletproof solution myself, but that’s why I think that the salary cap and revenue sharing have to be kind of linked together in the conversation. The players get the short end of a salary cap and individual owners get the short end of a meaningful revenue sharing system.
At the end of the day all they need to do is regulate the amount of money that can be used for player payrolls. Owners in the big markets are welcome to rake in all they want from tv deals, merchandise, buying British soccer teams, or whatever else. It’s just that the Dodgers/Yankees/Whoever can’t have the GDP of a former soviet republic if we’re going to have a fair and competitive league.
BlueSkyLA
What this does is make the larger market teams inherently more profitable than the smaller market teams. This doesn’t sound like much of a solution to me. The simplest and most equitable solution would be for all of the teams to pool all of their media revenue and divide it in 30 equal shares. Would this be a disincentive for teams to bargain for larger and larger media deals? Probably. Would that be a bad thing?
baseballpun
That’ll be $100 million for the one postseason win between the three of them the Dodgers will get.
JoeyPankake
While I don’t really like the concept of revenue sharing, I completely agree with the hard salary cap. It’s ridiculous when these so called penalties that are currently in place basically have zero impact on some teams willingness to blow right past them. Same goes for the money teams can spend on the international draft and international FA’s. Needs to be a hard cap on those as well.
BlueSkyLA
All of the pro sports share revenue between teams. What’s the conceptual problem?
JoeyPankake
It is just a little too socialistic for my liking. I realize it is probably neccisary for competitive balance, but the whole concept of wealth redistribution, in all aspects of life, just rubs me the wrong way.
jd396
I don’t disagree with you if we’re talking economics, but in a relatively simple financial system within the league, with a goal of having a fair and competitive product on the field, it’s different.
BlueSkyLA
Entirely the wrong concept. The teams are one, big business called MLB. They complete on the field of play, not otherwise. In fact they’ve even been given an antitrust law exemption that allows them to collude on a variety of issues that ordinary businesses cannot.
jd396
They aren’t totally under the MLB umbrella though. Many of the teams predate the league itself. And when you get Baltikore and Washington suing the crap out of each other over TV rights it shows how independent they are as business entities.
BlueSkyLA
Not sure what you mean by totally. The age of the team doesn’t seem at all relevant. The teams are all part of MLB now and they exist to serve each other and the financial interests of baseball. Team owners can’t even sell a team without the approval of the other 29 owners. In fact of the many rules under which the teams are bound to operate that were overruled by the courts in the Dodgers bankruptcy, MLB’s approval of the new owner wasn’t one of them. They don’t let just anybody into the club, not by a long shot.
jd396
That’s what the league is — representation of the owners’ collective interests. It’s stuff that’s worked into the MLB constitution and like the Astros league-flip, into the agreements to purchase teams.
But, in the hypothetical scenario where a team wanted to jump from the MLB to some other league, at the end of the day it would be ugly but when a guy says I’m taking my two billion dollar ball and going home, eventually he’d find s way to make it happen.
BlueSkyLA
And they could play split-squad games with themselves, much to the delight of their fans.
jd396
I think a salary cap and more meaningful revenue sharing have to go together. If a salary cap is going to limit how much teams can offer players, there’s going to have to be some means by which more teams are enabled to sign the players, or we’re going to get 1994 on steroids… well, maybe that’s not the greatest way to phrase it in our sport…
If a salary cap is going to rein in player salaries to make things fair and competitive, owners have to level the playing field between teams.
The way it is now, there’s no reasonable constraint on salaries running out of control. The MLBPA pretty much openly says they want everybody to auction themselves off so as to artificially inflate salaries for lesser quality players and set new records for other players to use as benchmarks when they negotiate.
The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have different kinds of controls and all the MLB has is the silly luxury tax.
I’d imagine some form of revenue sharing enabling small market teams to dish out large contracts without risking running their franchise into the ground, combined with something in the vein of limited free agency at 4 years of service time in place of arbitration, full FA still at 6 years, and some kind of “franchise tag” letting the undisputed greats of the game still get paid accordingly might be enough to at least bring the MLBPA to the table.
A system like that would have talent moving a bit more freely around the league. Free agency wouldn’t be an auction for the top few players going to the top few teams like it tends to be. With all 30 teams having roughly the same range of payrolls, I think there’d be a lot more opportunities for both teams and players.
If we’re going to expand to 32 teams at some point in the next decade the financial system has to come into the 21st century with the rest of the major sports leagues here.
BlueSkyLA
Some of these ideas are good, but if the plan is entirely about reining in salaries then it will go nowhere. Salaries are going up because of the growth in revenue. Salary caps aren’t about increasing competitive balance, they are about shifting more of the game’s revenue to the owners.
jd396
It’s not really about reining in salaries themselves (which is what the MLBPA will characterize it as if it comes up in sure, as if they’re representing coal miners in 1892) so much as it’s about m reining in what’s essentially a stacked free agent market that the majority of teams can’t realistically participate in.
BlueSkyLA
That problem is driven by the lopsided revenue model for baseball, which is a product of the sizes of the media markets. Cleveland is never going to generate anywhere close to the media revenue of New York no matter what you do to limit payrolls. Since teams can’t easily move (and not without MLB approval) then they have to share in the revenue generated by the media, or the whole concept of a league begins to make no sense.
The MLBPA represents the interests of the players and MLB represents the interests of the owners. This is as it should be.
Vizquel13
From each according to his means, to each according to his need.
Philip 2
Wow….. full cornucopia of players mentioned…. as I recall, Cubs won over 90 without the changes you think need to be made. Iowa Cubs were good team as well…. Just let Joe M. put his type of team in place.
justinept
They did… but then come playoff time, they were lauding the efforts of Kyle Hendricks for his “masterful” 3.2 inning pitching performance in G2 against the Cardinals… and hoping that he and Hammel could get through 4 innings against the Mets. That’s not going to cut it in the playoffs if this team hopes to take the next step in 2016.
Ragin' Cajun Brave 2
Need Greinke to make a decision. I think, in the end, whoever doesn’t sign Greinke out of the Cubs and Dodgers ends up trading for Miller. That’s assuming that Price signs with the BoSox.
Acuña Matata
Here’s an excerpt from a conversation I had w/ a Dodgers fan about Miller:
Just because you can afford to spend the money doesn’t always make it smart ala Yankees. Miller is cheap and can sign a very nice extension that would cost the Dodgers 1.5-2x as much on the open market.
Pitching wins ball games. The Dodgers were a mess after Greinke and Kershaw. Anderson was alright, Woods will regress further, Ryu’s shoulder (but that might not be that big of a deal). Yes, they have Urias and Lee but there’s no guarantee. Much like there’s
no guarantee the Dodgers can even keep this current band together. If Greinke jumps ship that rotation just got a whole lot weaker and uglier. Sure go after Price and get knocked out in the first round yet again.
Whether the Dodgers nation wants to admit it or not they need pitching. The bullpen is awful and the aforementioned rotation is a starter away from being a disaster.
But fine keep Seager. There’s a reason the Dodgers inquired. It’s a long offseason. If a few pieces fall the wrong way theyll be back with hat in hand.
_____________________________________________________________
Now I’m not saying Miller/Seager will happen. What I am saying is someone will come knocking before, during or after the Winter Meetings
BlueSkyLA
Every Dodgers fan knows the teams need starting pitching, particularly a RHP to slot in between Kershaw and Ryu (who at this point seems likely to be back). They also know to a fan that middle relief continues to be a weak link, but those players are not as difficult to pick up. The problem with trading Seager for anyone is that it creates a new void at SS and deals away a player who looks like he could be at the heart of the lineup for years to come.
jonscriff
No one wants to go to the d-backs.
baseballpun
Certainly not players of Hispanic heritage.
cubfanforever
McKinney is one guy I would not be interesting in trading.
Though not a power guy per se, he puts the bat on the ball.
Exactly the kind of guy the Cubs need going forward. At virtually
every level so far, he has more hits than games played. Seems like Almoravid
could be that kind of player too as he finds his game with perhaps a little more pop.
cubfanforever
Meant to say Almora.
RedFeather
The Cardinals will go out and sign a #5 starter and a utility man this OF.. Instead of spending money for once.. I guess thats “The Cardinal Way”
stl_cards16 2
Yeah, boo hoo. The Cardinals never make any good moves.
Lanidrac
You very well could be right about the #5 starter as long as he’s durable (not like they actually need any more than that), but they do intend to spend on some offense this offseason.
marinersblue96
Surprised the Cards TV deal is so weak. Market size 21st yet their TV deal is nearly $70 million less per year than Seattle’s who is ranked 14th in market size.
Lanidrac
It says “net,” which probably means in addition to what they get with their current TV deal.
justinept
Net means how much money they’ll receive after the operating costs have been subtracted from the gross… If it were ‘in addition to what they get they get with their current deal,’ the statement would’ve read: “the team will net an EXTRA $50 million…”
stl_cards16 2
It’s just over $1 Billion for 15 years. It also comes with a 30% equity stake of Fox Sports Midwest, which is obviously a substantial amount, as well.
justinept
The first year rights fee will start around $50 million and grow with a single-digit annual escalator. It is estimated the final year rights payment will be around $86 million.
stl_cards16 2
That’s standard. These new TV deals aren’t paying the same amount over the life of the contract, even if that’s how they get reported “will pay them $ xxMM per year”
marinersblue96
Still seems awfully light. The M’s deal is a minimum of $2 billion over 17 years and they own 70% of their network. The kicker on the deal is they partnered with Direct TV so they will get nationally TV revenue with DTVSN responsible for those costs but Seattle receives advertising money from non-baseball programming without being exposed to additional MLB revenue sharing.
jd396
That stuff kind of throws the numbers off, big time. Machinations like partial ownership of TV networks, or like what Fenway Sports Group is to the Red Sox makes it hard to compare one team to the next.
The more this stuff goes on the more I want some kind of salary cap/revenue sharing combo like I’ve been ranting about on this thread all morning.
andyb
they also got 30 percent ownership of the team
marinersblue96
Fox Sports Midwest received a 30% stake in the Cardinals? That seems to be a sweetheart deal for them.
stl_cards16 2
No, the Cardinals received a 30% stake of FSMW with this contract.
Cletis
The Cardinals absolutely have the money! Also, they also have some very good trade pieces. However, as history has dictated over the past 4-5 years, I anticipate our current GM and owners will put their name out to the public as interested in top tiered free agents just to appease the season ticket owners like me. Then, when it’s all said and done, not one of those players will be signed. I’m afraid We are looking at “low hanging fruit” (as Moe calls them) again for 2016. And…. An offense that will average 3 runs a game. I hope I’m proven wrong, but that is the Cardinals GM is known for. Heyward was nice last year! But giving up Miller, who was a controllable salary wise, for nothing for 2016. Bad deal !!!
stl_cards16 2
You know why the Cardinals have plenty of money to spend and prospects to trade? Because they don’t go make bad decisions just to appease the fans.
hojostache
They are a very well run organization….to the chagrin of the rest of the NL.
Cletis
Dear stl_cards16
You’re right, they do have plenty of money. But absolutely no one “never makes a bad decision”. Even Cardinals GM’s, just as Moe himself would tell you.
I’ve been an owner of season tickets for 21 years, I was at the World Series in 1964, 1967, 1985, 2004, 2006
SixFlagsMagicPadres
It’s not surprising that Ross is receiving interest. Would the Cubs be possibly willing to deal for him?
chicubbies1
I hope not. If it requires a “monster package” to get him he definitely isn’t worth it. There are pitchers on the block who are worth a monster package….. I don’t think Ross is one of them. Would rather have Miller…. Teheran….. Quintana…… Salazar, etc over Ross. His control is still a huge issue… at least to me. Any guy with nearly a 4BB/9IP rate worries me. He’s going to be 29 in 2016 as well and has yet to throw 200 IP in a season yet. How can he be worth a “monster package” if he hasn’t even eclipsed the 200 IP plateau.
chicubbies1
C Montero – $14M
1B Rizzo – $5.286M
2B Castro – $7.857M
3B Bryant – $550K (roughly)
SS Russell – $550K (roughly)
RF Soler – $3.667M
CF
LF Schwarber – $530K (roughly)
C Ross – $2.5M
IF Baez – $520K (roughly)
IF La Stella – $530K (roughly)
OF Coghlan – $3.9M (MLBTR arb prediction)
OF
SP Arrieta – $10.6M (MLBTR arb prediction)
SP Lester – $25M
SP
SP
SP Hendricks – $550K (roughly)
CL Rondon – $3.6M (MLBTR arb prediction)
SUa Strop – $4.7M (MLBTR arb prediction)
SUb Ramirez – $530K (roughly)
RP Grimm – $1M (MLBTR arb prediction)
RP CJ Edwards – $510K (roughly)
RP Wood – $6.4M (MLBTR arb prediction)
RP Hammel???? – $9M
Pretty sure that’s everybody who currently is most likely to be back with the team in 2016 barring any trades. This team (if my math is correct) costs about $101.78M. If they’re still paying Edwin Jackson that’s another $13M….. but isn’t he listed as a free agent? So if he signs with another team wouldn’t it void out the contract?
Anyways, my math tells me they have about $40M available for the 2016 payroll…. if you believe it will be capped at only $140M. They way Theo and Hoyer made it sound right after the season with their goals and all I’m thinking more like $150M. But whatever. That 5th OFer spot could go to Szczur who would only cost a hair over half a mil. That leaves 2 SP spots and a CF spot open right now. Personally I’d like to see the Cubs trade Hammel and his $9M for a cheaper, and likely better, reliever. So that could knock of $4-5M right there. So now they have $45M open for additional payroll for 3 needs and maybe a 5th OFer or more IF help at the corners to spell Bryant and Rizzo. Maybe trade Castro, Almora, and Vogelbach to the White Sox for Jose Quintana. That shaves about $2M more off the payroll. Then Baez starts at 2B and you can sign someone like Bonifacio as a backup option to fill that bench spot (or retain Herrera)….. likely for $2-3M on a 1 year deal. Sign Price hopefully for $29M aav…. if not then Greinke for $28M aav. Then sign Heyward on a deal for $19M aav. For a payroll of about $145-$150M you got:
CF Heyward
SS Russell
1B Rizzo
3B Bryant
LF Schwarber
RF Soler
C Montero
2B Baez
SP Price
SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Quintana
SP Hendricks
Ross
La Stella
Herrera OR Bonifacio
Coghlan
Szczur
Rondon
Strop
Ramirez
Grimm
Wood
Edwards
reliever you traded Hammel for
I could live with that, haha
chesteraarthur
The cubs pay Edwin Jackson’s 2016 rate – whatever another team signs him to (likely minimum). They don’t cancel.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
Sign Cueto and do NOT trade soler or Baez. The odd man out is and will always be Castro.