December 6, 2018 at 11:20 am #76279
Just another reminder to those who want the Cards to get Harper how difficult it may be. If the Cubs went in on him, they wouldn’t let the Cards get him. No way.
You mean they would block us? 🙂December 6, 2018 at 11:21 am #76280
Wouldn’t that be something if Harper was on waivers for anyone to claim? Of course, that is an entirely different situation. You have picked a strange hill to defend to the end, but it is all yours. I think we already knew the Cardinals were not buyers, but sellers last July, but yes, this is another reminder. Long live Daniel Murphy! 😉December 6, 2018 at 11:23 am #76281
Supposedly the Dodgers made a claim last August but the Nats wouldn’t do a deal.December 6, 2018 at 11:27 am #76287
That cannot be. A player can only be claimed off waivers after July 31 once. If a deal cannot be worked out with the claiming team, that is it.
If the Nats could keep putting him on waivers over and over, there could be no block.December 6, 2018 at 11:31 am #76292stlcard25ParticipantPaid - Annual
Harper was claimed by the Dodgers, not Murphy… right?December 6, 2018 at 11:33 am #76294
Whoops. My bad. Yes, thanks for clearing that up, stlcard25. Two different Nats on waivers. Sorry gscottar. (Block is his code word for bringing up Murphy, who did go to the Cubs on waivers. That is why I thought he was still talking about Murphy.)December 6, 2018 at 11:34 am #76296December 6, 2018 at 10:55 pm #76359December 7, 2018 at 10:19 am #76413
My attempt at humor was just a reminder that blocking does actually happen contrary to what some might believe.December 7, 2018 at 12:02 pm #76452
Apples and oranges, IMO, but we can agree to disagree.December 7, 2018 at 12:21 pm #76453
Sounds like Theo has gotten more realistic in representing the Cubs’ lack of payroll flexibility.
Theo Epstein points out #Cubs have 'limitations like every team' in their offseason spending.
— 670 The Score (@670TheScore) December 7, 2018December 7, 2018 at 1:15 pm #76458
Tommy Hottovy…..Terrmel Sludge…..not exactly household names in the Pugs’ household…..nor I doubt in most anybody’s.December 7, 2018 at 3:24 pm #76466
If you look at it on paper it sure doesn’t look like the Cubs have much payroll flexibility. I just hope Theo isn’t lulling everyone to sleep only to pull a fast one at the end.
More likely they will try the trade market. A writer on ESPN.com today posed a Schwarber and Happ for Kluber trade.
In my opinion their biggest weakness is bullpen.December 7, 2018 at 3:38 pm #76468stlcard25ParticipantPaid - Annual
In my opinion their biggest weakness is bullpen.
Maybe at this exact moment, but that old rotation is going to fall apart one of these days. We saw the first wobbles by Lester this year, a la Waino in 2014/15. I wouldn’t be shocked if the rotation is the division’s worst by 2020.December 7, 2018 at 4:30 pm #76473
Kluber in Chicago scares the daylights out of me. If that were to occur, it would pretty much force our hand to go out and counter the move by landing a Bumgarner. Fortunately, I don’t see Cleveland getting the least bit giddy with Schwarber and Happ for their ace.December 7, 2018 at 4:41 pm #76476
I am confused by that trade idea. If the Cubs are tight on money, how does trading two minimum salary guys in Schwarber and Happ for a pitcher making $13 million work out?December 7, 2018 at 7:17 pm #76488Bob ReedParticipantFree
The Cubs have a trio of $20M starters, plus Quintana and Hendricks. That’s their five, I would have to assume.
If Darvish can’t go, then they default to Chatwood or Mike Montgomery — one of the highly underrated utility pitchers in all the majors.
So I don’t see either the budget or compelling motivation for Kluber. And besides all that, I cannot imagine the smart Indian front office falling for a trade like that. Ian Happ is a very good bench piece, but that’s all; not enough bat to start. And Fat Boy is a platoon bat with no defensive position, which should hold very little appeal for a team with a $20M designated hitter already in the fold in Encarnacion.December 8, 2018 at 7:41 am #76509
I saw an ESPN trade ideas article that tried to put it all together, suggesting that by trading Schwarber and Happ for Kluber, that would open up an outfield spot for Harper – with no mention of the financial problems that would cause and how the Cubs would resolve them. Weak.December 8, 2018 at 1:09 pm #76585
None of these trade ideas or Harper signing make sense for the Cubs financially unless they come to the conclusion that they just don’t care about the luxury tax and will spend whatever they want. That is what Boston did last year.December 9, 2018 at 3:27 pm #76701December 9, 2018 at 8:11 pm #76732
I think Schwarber has been a big time disappointment. A poor man’s Dave Kingman…..except Schwarber whiffs at a higher rate. Coming up thru the minors it looked as if the cubs had themselves a real superstar on their hands. I wouldn’t trade Bader straight up for both Schwarber and Happ.December 10, 2018 at 9:44 am #76793
I think Schwarber has been a big time disappointment. A poor man’s Dave Kingman…..except Schwarber whiffs at a higher rate. Coming up thru the minors it looked as if the cubs had themselves a real superstar on their hands. I wouldn’t trade Bader straight up for both Schwarber and Happ.
Wowzers. That is quite the statement Pugs.
If Theo offered us Schwarber and Happ for just Bader I imagine Mo and Girsch would tear rotator cuffs by lunging so hard to grab the pen in order to sign the deal.December 10, 2018 at 11:13 am #76827PadsFSParticipantPaid - Annual
Cubs payroll situation
This seems to have everything to do with their payroll. According to Roster Resource, it’s projected at more than $219 million in 2019. In the eyes of the luxury tax, it’s nearly $232.5 million. That puts them in range for second-tier penalties, with third-tier penalties (starting at $246 million) not far away.
I have the Cubs sitting at $206.2M for next year.
Roster Resource has the wrong salaries in for several players like Lester and Heyward to the tune of $6.0M. Then, they include 2020 buyouts into the 2019 payroll ~ another $6.0M. Then they include estimate payroll for pre-arb players at $7.5M, which is high for a team with so many non-pre-arb players on the roster, I count 7 @ $0.6M each for $4.2M. That’s a $15M difference right there. Then they include something called estimated player benefits at $14.5M, whcih takes you up to the $230M range.
Either way, I think your post is correct in it being something that is certainly going to hinder them from a player acquisition standpoint.
The big problem for the Cubs has been the complete failure of their farm system to produce anything after the trades of Jimenez (Quintana) and Torres (Chapman). They have nothing in the pipeline to supplement the roster and are forced to get mediocre guys like Duensing, Kinzler, and Chatwood to fill out the roster and those guys even turned into below-average players exacerbating the situation.December 10, 2018 at 12:45 pm #76848CariocaCardinalParticipantPaid - Monthly
I am not an expert on luxury tax calculations but I am pretty sure buyouts do roll over into the next year as they have it.December 10, 2018 at 2:00 pm #76857PadsFSParticipantPaid - Annual
Seems silly to include 2020 buyouts for players onto the 2019
payroll. It’s not exactly like they aren’t going to exercise the options for Rizzo or Quintana either. The third, Morrow, will be paid, but it should go to the 2020 payroll.
I guess they are technically “bought out” in the previous year at years’ end so that’s the thinking behind it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.