« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 711 712 [713] 714 715 ... 728   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubs in '12  (Read 203240 times)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10680 on: December 21, 2012, 02:41:53 pm »
Pretty amazing the awful 40 man roster of the Cubs can have all of these players that other teams want.
Logged

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10681 on: December 21, 2012, 02:44:09 pm »
It would be embarrassing to find out exactly how many would get through waivers.

I nominate Coleman.  Unless he's already off the 40.
Logged

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14455
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10682 on: December 21, 2012, 06:08:26 pm »
40? Coleman should get thru everyone's 80...
Logged

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10683 on: December 21, 2012, 06:24:49 pm »
How was the Rendezvous today, Dave?
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16442
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10684 on: December 21, 2012, 06:29:53 pm »
They should take Soriano off the 40 man roster.
Logged

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14455
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10685 on: December 21, 2012, 10:00:24 pm »
Went downtown today, but not to the Rendezvous...close enough to smell it while walking, though!
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10686 on: December 21, 2012, 10:46:25 pm »
Quote from: Reb
Bourn is a Boras client and the initial reports had them looking for a 5/100 contract.

Now, lots of clubs have filled their CF need and you have to wonder where Bourn might land.  At this point, seems that 5/100 might be a pipe dream and Bourn is probably looking at four years tops, with lesser annual money.

I previously mentioned the Edwin Jackson 4/52 contract--or maybe something like 4/60 for Bourn.  I'm not sure that he gets more than that at this point.  Is that a value contract?

One thing I'm always amazed by with Boras is he always seems to gets the money he wants for his clients, even when you'd think the market wouldn't dictate it.  Like Prince Fielder last year for example, I seem to remember the 1B market had supposedly dried up and big market teams didn't have a big need for him, but he still wound up getting paid by Detroit anyway.

Maybe 5/100 is really a pipe dream for Bourn, but Boras is very rarely stuck having his clients sign for "value" contracts.  It'll be interesting to see how Bourn's situation plays out, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if he winds up signing for a big contract, even with the CF market starting to dry up.  Boras certainly has a gift for making teams bid against themselves for a player.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 10:48:14 pm by JR »
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16442
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10687 on: December 21, 2012, 10:56:21 pm »
I don't see Bourn as much help to the Cubs.  I wouldn't give him more than two year under any circumstances, and I wouldn't go as high as 10 million per year.  155 strike outs with little power,  last year and a .700 lifetime OPS just isn't worth the money.  I would much rather rely on Brett Jackson.
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: O'Fallon, IL
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10688 on: December 22, 2012, 12:51:56 am »
Quote from: davep on December 21, 2012, 10:56:21 pm
I don't see Bourn as much help to the Cubs.  I wouldn't give him more than two year under any circumstances, and I wouldn't go as high as 10 million per year.  155 strike outs with little power,  last year and a .700 lifetime OPS just isn't worth the money.  I would much rather rely on Brett Jackson.

To put that into perspective, both Ryan Theriot and Corey Patterson have lifetime OPS's of .691, while Bourn is at .704. Even Felix Pie was at .699 before he fell off the cliff in 2011 (after two seasons in Chicago and two in Baltimore), posting a OPS of .545 in 2011 and spending 2012 in AAA.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:05:14 am by Cubsin »
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10689 on: December 22, 2012, 08:58:38 am »
Quote from: brjones on December 21, 2012, 10:41:32 am
Keith Law's analysis of the Edwin Jackson deal has just been posted on ESPN.  I haven't read it yet, but the first paragraph indicates he actually gets paid $11 million per year, and he got an $8 million signing bonus.  Had anyone mentioned that before?  If that's the case, the deal is even better.

Interesting structure.  I like the front-loading/bonus, while we've got a tiny payroll and limited talent worthy of the budget available.  At $11 rather than $13, Jackson will seem like a better value.  Easier to trade; more likely to seem like a real bargain if he improves a little while inflation makes $11/per seem better and better; and $11/per will seem like less dead money if his health/performance deteriorates later in the contract.  Good thinking by management. 
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10690 on: December 22, 2012, 09:55:46 am »
Here's information about the structure of the Jackson deal from Bleacher Nation:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/12/22/the-interesting-financial-particulars-of-edwin-jacksons-contract/

The point he makes about the signing bonus is that as long as it's paid out this week, it essentially will be charged against 2012's payroll, presumably with leftover money they didn't spend on this year's team.  So the impact to the payroll really is 4 years/$44 million--the signing bonus won't even impact 2013's payroll.
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10691 on: December 22, 2012, 10:35:11 am »
A poster says there isn't a no-trade clause in Jackson's deal. 

If the contract doesn't have an explicit no-trade clause, will he be fully tradable for the duration of the deal?  There won't be any CBA rules that will automatically give him no-trade rights? 
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10692 on: December 22, 2012, 10:55:21 am »
Quote from: brjones on December 22, 2012, 09:55:46 am
Here's information about the structure of the Jackson deal from Bleacher Nation:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/12/22/the-interesting-financial-particulars-of-edwin-jacksons-contract/

The point he makes about the signing bonus is that as long as it's paid out this week, it essentially will be charged against 2012's payroll....

And at the 2012 tax rate.

Look for some other serious signings of FA before the end of the year, and with many of them similarly structured to have signing bonuses which are paid in 2012 instead of after the tax rates go up.

On a 10M salary, a 3% tax increase is $300K.
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16442
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10693 on: December 22, 2012, 11:00:50 am »
When it is paid isn't the important thing.  From a tax point of view, the company can just accrue it on their books.  From an operational point of view, Ricketts can put it anywhere he wants.  From a cash flow point of view, a couple of weeks either way probably isn't going to make much of a difference.
Logged

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10694 on: December 22, 2012, 11:30:15 am »
davep, I wasn't looking at the team perspective at all, but the player perspective.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 711 712 [713] 714 715 ... 728   Go Up
« previous next »