Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 229 of 272 FirstFirst ... 129179219227228229230231239 ... LastLast
Results 3,421 to 3,435 of 4075
  1. #3421
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,835

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    The big trouble is going over 3 consecutive years. It may cost them up to 50 million in penalties the third time. I would consider that big trouble. Boston has excepted it. The Cubs certainly won't.

    The Cubs will never operate like the Yankees.
    Itís not big trouble if they choose to accept it. They can avoid it if they want. Itís a choice, just like the Cubs decision is a choice.

    Itís an operating expense. No need for anyone else to be more concerned about their finances than they are. Big market teams have revenues that support this.

    If the Yankees can go over 16 out of 17 years the Cubs can go over multiple years without having to tank a season and trade a star to avoid the tax.

  2. #3422
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,051
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    The big trouble is going over 3 consecutive years. It may cost them up to 50 million in penalties the third time. I would consider that big trouble. Boston has excepted it. The Cubs certainly won't.

    The Cubs will never operate like the Yankees.
    The Cubs could conceivably operate like the Yankees, however, most of the time. They choose to not operate like the Yankees.

  3. #3423
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,447

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    I donít like the way this seems to be going


    https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status...231041538?s=21


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

  4. #3424
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,449
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Itís not big trouble if they choose to accept it. They can avoid it if they want. Itís a choice, just like the Cubs decision is a choice.

    Itís an operating expense. No need for anyone else to be more concerned about their finances than they are. Big market teams have revenues that support this.

    If the Yankees can go over 16 out of 17 years the Cubs can go over multiple years without having to tank a season and trade a star to avoid the tax.
    What sucks is the only advantage a large market team has over the other teams is the ability to spend money. When the fail to utilize that advantage it becomes the advantage of the small market team which get other advantages such as more IFA money, less penalties when signing a FA, more rewards when losing a FA, competitive balance picks, etc..... So, in essence if a large market team does not act like one, they are actually putting themselves at a disadvantage over a large amount of the league.

  5. #3425
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,835

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Dfan25 View Post
    I donít like the way this seems to be going


    https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status...231041538?s=21


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    Yep. Itís going to happen.

    That article is ridiculous, too. Morosi is a Harvard grad. He has to be a smart guy but he has no concept of value.

    There is no indication that the Cardinals are willing to include star right-hander Jack Flaherty in a proposal for Arenado.
    You think?

    The Rockies also are expected to ask for at least one of the Cardinalsí top four prospects, as ranked by MLB Pipeline: outfielder Dylan Carlson, third baseman Nolan Gorman, left-hander Matthew Liberatore (acquired from the Rays last week) or catcher Andrew Knizner.
    One of these is not like the others.

    While St. Louis veteran Matt Carpenter is one candidate to be included in the deal -- based on his ability to play either infield corner in Colorado -- the Rockies donít appear to be mandating his inclusion.
    Why would the Rockies mandate his inclusion? Heís the dead money in the deal. Itís the Cards who would want him involved.

  6. #3426
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,447

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Yep. Itís going to happen.

    That article is ridiculous, too. Morosi is a Harvard grad. He has to be a smart guy but he has no concept of value.

    There is no indication that the Cardinals are willing to include star right-hander Jack Flaherty in a proposal for Arenado.
    You think?

    The Rockies also are expected to ask for at least one of the Cardinalsí top four prospects, as ranked by MLB Pipeline: outfielder Dylan Carlson, third baseman Nolan Gorman, left-hander Matthew Liberatore (acquired from the Rays last week) or catcher Andrew Knizner.
    One of these is not like the others.

    While St. Louis veteran Matt Carpenter is one candidate to be included in the deal -- based on his ability to play either infield corner in Colorado -- the Rockies donít appear to be mandating his inclusion.
    Why would the Rockies mandate his inclusion? Heís the dead money in the deal. Itís the Cards who would want him involved.
    Yeah there are some weird comments in that article. Unfortunately I think the Cardinals matchup really well with what Colorado seems to be looking for.

    I could see something like Hudson / one of Gorman / Liberatore / Carpenter / Knizner .

    Hudson is a prime regression candidate but has a ton of cheap control left .The other two are really good prospects and Knizner fits as well since they are looking for catchers.

    I still trying to understand why Tampa gave Liberatore in that deal with St Louis . Maybe I am missing something but looks like they did the Cardinals a huge favor.


    With that said if the Cubs are willing to include one of their 4 top prospects I think they can beat that offer

    Contreras / Chatwood / Descalso / 1 of the top 4 . I do think the fact that the Rockies can clear the dead money from the Cubs after a year would ha e significant value here.

    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    Last edited by Dfan25; 01-14-2020 at 01:43 PM.

  7. #3427
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Elgin, IL
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by Dfan25 View Post
    Yeah there are some weird comments in that article. Unfortunately I think the Cardinals matchup really well with what Colorado seems to be looking for.

    I could see something like Hudson / one of Gorman / Liberatore / Carpenter / Knizner .

    Hudson is a prime regression candidate but has a ton of cheap control left .The other two are really good prospects and Knizner fits as well since they are looking for catchers.

    I still trying to understand why Tampa gave Liberatore in that deal with St Louis . Maybe I am missing something but looks like they did the Cardinals a huge favor.


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    Hopefully the Rockies ask for Edman from the Cards


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #3428
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,835

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Dfan25 View Post
    Yeah there are some weird comments in that article. Unfortunately I think the Cardinals matchup really well with what Colorado seems to be looking for.

    I could see something like Hudson / one of Gorman / Liberatore / Carpenter / Knizner .

    Hudson is a prime regression candidate but has a ton of cheap control left .The other two are really good prospects and Knizner fits as well since they are looking for catchers.

    I still trying to understand why Tampa gave Liberatore in that deal with St Louis . Maybe I am missing something but looks like they did the Cardinals a huge favor.


    With that said if the Cubs are willing to include one of their 4 top prospects I think they can beat that offer

    Contreras / Chatwood / Descalso / 1 of the top 4 . I do think the fact that the Rockies can clear the dead money from the Cubs after a year would ha e significant value here.

    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    If they could trade KB for Kieboom and Rutledge, Iíd include Nico with Contreras for Arenado as long as Colorado took back enough bad money to lower Arenado to 7/200. Arenado would need to waive the opt out, too.

    Basically:
    Out - KB, Nico, Contreras, bad money
    In - Arenado on a 7/200 deal, Kieboom, Rutledge




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #3429
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Dfan25 View Post
    Yeah there are some weird comments in that article. Unfortunately I think the Cardinals matchup really well with what Colorado seems to be looking for.

    I could see something like Hudson / one of Gorman / Liberatore / Carpenter / Knizner .

    Hudson is a prime regression candidate but has a ton of cheap control left .The other two are really good prospects and Knizner fits as well since they are looking for catchers.

    I still trying to understand why Tampa gave Liberatore in that deal with St Louis . Maybe I am missing something but looks like they did the Cardinals a huge favor.


    With that said if the Cubs are willing to include one of their 4 top prospects I think they can beat that offer

    Contreras / Chatwood / Descalso / 1 of the top 4 . I do think the fact that the Rockies can clear the dead money from the Cubs after a year would ha e significant value here.

    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

    I do not follow what you feel the Cardinals should give up.


    I could see something like Hudson / one of Gorman / Liberatore / Carpenter / Knizner

    Above. Are you saying Hudson then one of those other 4? I would think you meant Gorman, Carpenter and one of the other 3. But I can't tell by the way you have it. Or are you saying Hudson, Carpenter, Knizer for sure. And either Libertore or Gorman as the 4th piece?

  10. #3430
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,449
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    If they could trade KB for Kieboom and Rutledge, Iíd include Nico with Contreras for Arenado as long as Colorado took back enough bad money to lower Arenado to 7/200. Arenado would need to waive the opt out, too.

    Basically:
    Out - KB, Nico, Contreras, bad money
    In - Arenado on a 7/200 deal, Kieboom, Rutledge




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I had not been a strong supporter of this, but I would do that as well. Have to get him out of St.L. That would suck.

  11. #3431
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,447
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    If they could trade KB for Kieboom and Rutledge, Iíd include Nico with Contreras for Arenado as long as Colorado took back enough bad money to lower Arenado to 7/200. Arenado would need to waive the opt out, too.

    Basically:
    Out - KB, Nico, Contreras, bad money
    In - Arenado on a 7/200 deal, Kieboom, Rutledge




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yeah I would as well . Got to keep Arenado out of St Louis . If that means trading Nico so be it.


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

  12. #3432
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,835

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I had not been a strong supporter of this, but I would do that as well. Have to get him out of St.L. That would suck.
    Basically Kieboom is an upgrade over Nico. Arenado on 7/200 is an upgrade over KB on 2/45. The cost of these 2 upgrades is Contreras and you also get Rutledge back.

  13. #3433
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,449
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Basically Kieboom is an upgrade over Nico. Arenado on 7/200 is an upgrade over KB on 2/45. The cost of these 2 upgrades is Contreras and you also get Rutledge back.
    I get it. I would do it.

  14. #3434
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    What sucks is the only advantage a large market team has over the other teams is the ability to spend money. When the fail to utilize that advantage it becomes the advantage of the small market team which get other advantages such as more IFA money, less penalties when signing a FA, more rewards when losing a FA, competitive balance picks, etc..... So, in essence if a large market team does not act like one, they are actually putting themselves at a disadvantage over a large amount of the league.
    I think that this would be true if the Cubs had a payroll like a small market team. They spend, and spend, and spend. Last year, they were #2. In 2018, they were #4. In 2017, there were #9. In 2016, they were #5. They spend, but they're not willing go over back to back years.

    The last 4 years, they've ranged from 183-237. That's large market spending. IMO, they just don't spend wisely.

  15. #3435
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,447

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I do not follow what you feel the Cardinals should give up.


    I could see something like Hudson / one of Gorman / Liberatore / Carpenter / Knizner

    Above. Are you saying Hudson then one of those other 4? I would think you meant Gorman, Carpenter and one of the other 3. But I can't tell by the way you have it. Or are you saying Hudson, Carpenter, Knizer for sure. And either Libertore or Gorman as the 4th piece?
    Hudson as mlb piece then one of Gorman / Liberatore . Carpenter as the dead money and Knizner as the 4th piece.


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •