stlcards5129 wrote: Jackson or Villanueva make a whole lot more sense compared to Lohse, he's just too old to contribute when this team is expected to be ready to really compete.

scadder21 wrote:
Then I think it's for sure that the Cubs get Lohse.  

What'd ya know. I was right. Jackson and Villanueva made more sense for the Cubs than Lohse from the start. Rebuilding teams just don't sign 34 year old pitchers.

No trade clause for Jackson. Yikes. That could get awkward for Theo.

blingboy wrote: No trade clause for Jackson. Yikes. That could get awkward for Theo.

Neither deal (Jackson and Villanueva) includes a no trade clause per club policy.

http://www.csnchicago.com/base...mp;feedID=10336

So pretty much they have him for a few more years or till the deadline and then trade him.

stlcards5129 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Jackson or Villanueva make a whole lot more sense compared to Lohse, he's just too old to contribute when this team is expected to be ready to really compete.

scadder21 wrote:
Then I think it's for sure that the Cubs get Lohse.  

What'd ya know. I was right. Jackson and Villanueva made more sense for the Cubs than Lohse from the start. Rebuilding teams just don't sign 34 year old pitchers.

I believe that one will be traded by the deadline this year and 1 traded next year.

scadder21 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Jackson or Villanueva make a whole lot more sense compared to Lohse, he's just too old to contribute when this team is expected to be ready to really compete.

scadder21 wrote:
Then I think it's for sure that the Cubs get Lohse.  

What'd ya know. I was right. Jackson and Villanueva made more sense for the Cubs than Lohse from the start. Rebuilding teams just don't sign 34 year old pitchers.

I believe that one will be traded by the deadline this year and 1 traded next year.

...ok

Too bad Cards are not able to bring back Lohse. We could just blungeon the NL to death with our right handed pitching.

stlcards5129 wrote:

scadder21 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Jackson or Villanueva make a whole lot more sense compared to Lohse, he's just too old to contribute when this team is expected to be ready to really compete.

scadder21 wrote:
Then I think it's for sure that the Cubs get Lohse.  

What'd ya know. I was right. Jackson and Villanueva made more sense for the Cubs than Lohse from the start. Rebuilding teams just don't sign 34 year old pitchers.

I believe that one will be traded by the deadline this year and 1 traded next year.

...ok

Why wouldn't they.  The Cubs are in a complete rebuild and still won't be good this year.  It just seemed like Ricketts didn't want the team to be as bad this year as next.  If they are horrible again he will want to jettison some of that money and I'm sure Theo would rather do the complete rebuild and get a better draft spot than win 5 to 10 more games.  It makes no sense the Cubs deciding to sign these guys.

scadder21 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

scadder21 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Jackson or Villanueva make a whole lot more sense compared to Lohse, he's just too old to contribute when this team is expected to be ready to really compete.

scadder21 wrote:
Then I think it's for sure that the Cubs get Lohse.  

What'd ya know. I was right. Jackson and Villanueva made more sense for the Cubs than Lohse from the start. Rebuilding teams just don't sign 34 year old pitchers.

I believe that one will be traded by the deadline this year and 1 traded next year.

...ok

Why wouldn't they.  The Cubs are in a complete rebuild and still won't be good this year.  It just seemed like Ricketts didn't want the team to be as bad this year as next.  If they are horrible again he will want to jettison some of that money and I'm sure Theo would rather do the complete rebuild and get a better draft spot than win 5 to 10 more games.  It makes no sense the Cubs deciding to sign these guys.

I didn't say anything one way or another. I, like you, don't know what the Cubs intentions are, so I'm not going to comment on them....

scadder21 wrote: It makes no sense the Cubs deciding to sign these guys.

...but it made sense to you for the Cubs to sign Lohse?...I don't get it...

I didn't think they would sign him to keep him. The Cubs are flipping again. Get 2 decent guys and try to trade them at the deadline when teams are desperate for pitching. Why would they sign Jackson long term when no one else in the last 4 or 5 years would hold on to him? I think this is a move to increase season tickets with the hope that they won't be completely bad and then at the deadline when they still are bad trade them for more future parts.

Cubs will not contend after June but they may be better than many think. If and this is a big IF Jackson and Garza both pitch to their potential their rotation could be solid. "Smarge" threw the ball well last year and Baker and Feldman could be a decent back end b/c no one in this division is familiar with them. It's a matter of opinion but i have always felt the advantage goes to the pitcher the first and second times through a new league. After teams have got a good look at those two it could change abruptly. Rizzo and Castro give some hope for the future. I totally agree with the "flip" scenario as Chicago will have a few nice chips at the deadline.

Inspired by ESPN's Jayson Stark, I discovered an interesting common thread that links Jackson to a group of others.

"Jackson and other eight-team pitchers have a common thread"

Jackson has really made out with just averge pitching.

If Jackson pitches close to how he did over the past four years, he would be worth the $13 million per season, if you take into account that fangraphs estimated his worth to be a little over $15 million per season over that stretch.

Remember the old Bill Veeck quote from the late 70's - "It's not the high price of stardom that bothers me; it's the high price of mediocrity."

I like Jackson fine, but I'm very curious about these graphics that say a guy is "worth" $15MM or whatever.  What are they basing that on?

And if Jackson is worth 4/52 and Swisher with 4/56, one shudders to imagine what Adam Wainwright's next contract is going to look like.  I'm beginning to think that by today's standards, we may have gotten a bargain signing Yadi to that 5/75 extension.

They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Jackson has outstanding stuff so I'm guessing there is an eternal hope that he harnesses his stuff and turns into a great pitcher.

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------
--- Jmodene1 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------



I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. A 1 WAR player generally is signed to a $5M deal.

If you take all the FA and their contracts. The average payout is 1 WAR per $5M. Some out perform that (Beltran) and some disappoint (Berkman, 2012) and it all averages out. I believe a similar formula is used to determine per arbitration values (the $0.5M-ish)

It's not rocket science.