Bleacher Bums Forum

I think Jackson is the fall back option, too.  Looks like they want one more solid pitcher, rather than someone they're looking to create value from.  Looking at fangraphs and they have pretty similar profiles...both walked less than 3 per 9 the last 2 years.  Jackson a tick lower walk rate in 2011, Sanchez half a walk per game lower in 2012.  Jackson better home run rate in 2011, Sanchez in 2012, with both roughly around 1.  Batting average does the tipsy topsy rotating thingy, too.  Sanchez took home the emmy for k rate in 2011 with two and a half more per 9 in 2011 while Jackson brought home the oscar with a quarter k per 9 more in 2012 with both a shade under 8.  Similar ground ball rates.  Jackson does have a couple extra mph on the fastball though.  Jackson had a touch higher era and fip both years.

Guess I coulda done a bunch of copying and pasting, but notes are good enough...not sure Sanchez is that much better a pitcher than Jackson, excluding makeup.

Really similar.

Odds are I made a mistake or 9 in there somewhere.

At some point the "We're a bad team that shouldn't spend money to get better" reasoning begins to wear a little thin.

Except that is not the reasoning, and now is not yet time to start spending heavily.

Not yet having the foundation pieces in place to warrant major spending is quite different from simply being "a bad team."

A couple of thoughts on Sanchez now that I'm actually in front of my computer and can type all this out.

1.  Just honestly, five year big money contracts to pitchers scare the crap out of me, so if the Tigers decide to match or exceed the offer to Sanchez, it won't hurt my feelings all that much.  Sanchez probably is a solid value, especially in a world where Zack Greinke is making $25 million per year, and he makes more sense for the Cubs than any other big ticket free agent out there.  Still, pitchers get hurt easily (and Sanchez does have an injury history), and they can lose effectiveness just about any time.  Five years is a long time for either of those things not to happen to a starting pitcher.

Pretty much, I'd like to see him accept our offer, but if he doesn't, that's one less risky contract to not have to worry about.

2.  If we do get Sanchez, that really changes the outlook for next season obviously.  If we sign Mike Adams and figure out a way to acquire an above average defensive CF, you'd have a team with very strong pitching and defense, and that might be good enough to put a contender on the field.  It'd at least be good enough to give us a shot to finish above .500, and that would certainly be a nice thing to see after last season's debacle. 

I think they're going to have pretty phenomenal defense. If the Cubs sign Sanchez, their defense could bring a pretty good rotation pretty close to that phenomenal level.

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal
Source: #Cubs increase five-year offer to Anibal Sanchez to $77.5M. #Tigers at $75M. Negotiations continue.
 Retweeted by Paul Sullivan

The Cubs can claim all they want that they have nothing to do with these premature leaks...but it's happened to the Cubs three times in the past 6 months now...and I can't remember the last time a deal was reported as done but fell through for some other team. 

The Cubs can claim all they want that they have nothing to do with these premature leaks...but it's happened to the Cubs three times in the past 6 months now...and I can't remember the last time a deal was reported as done but fell through for some other team. 

I think it has a lot to do with the Twitter age we live in.  All these idiot reporters have to be the first on Twitter to break the news, and they often jump the gun before the team is completed.

Still, the Cubs probably need to find out who's leaking all this info to the media.