As first posted in AGC's FanShot an hour ago, the Cubs sale to the Tom Ricketts group was finalized today:
Tribune Co. has reached a deal to sell the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field to the Ricketts family, a source familiar with the matter said this morning.
The two sides reached a sale agreement over the weekend and have forwarded the contract to Major League Baseball, the source said.
The deal must be approved by other baseball owners. With Tribune Co. operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the sale also will need court approval.
An era has ended and another will begin whenever all those who need to put their stamp of approval have done so. We all hope this leads us to the promised land of many championships.
0 recs | 252 comments
Although...
…Ricketts won’t take control of the club for approx. a couple of months, I would imagine having this agreement in place could allow him to give approval to add payroll at the deadline.
MPH73 - July 6, 2009
Why do we need to add payroll?
Today we’re getting ARam, RJ and Guzman back. It’s like getting 3 Free Agents!
digitalbenjamin - July 6, 2009
Nice....
Tell me Hendry didn’t say that already! :^)
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
idk if hendry did, but i know lou did
jesus christos - July 6, 2009
If the opportunity arises...
…you have to go for it.
MPH73 - July 6, 2009
my guess is that there is a surrogate process where all moves go through an approval with the Rickett's.
Furthermore, Cubs value and their brand/marketing value hinges on being a top-tier team.
Cubs weakness is a bat somewhere….2B or SS (moving Theriot) and a bullpen arm.
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
2B
Believe it or not:
Theriot: .757 OPS
Fontenot: .687 OPS
Neither is great, but Theriot is hitting better so far this season.
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
Fontenot is not a full-time player and possibly neither is Theriot but I am okay with Ryan this year
The thing is what would Tejada do in this lineup the last two months of the season.
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
How can Ryan Theriot not be a full-time player?
He’s been the starting shortstop for two and a half years now.
daver - July 6, 2009
well, technically yes...
digitalbenjamin - July 6, 2009
PV!
On a more serious note, does anyone have a general idea of how long it typically takes MLB to approve a sale?
daver - July 6, 2009
There is no "typical".
Could take anywhere from 24 hours to two or three months. This deal is complicated by the bankruptcy. I assume it will take till the end of the season.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
OK, so this is basically the beginning of the end...
…though the end itself could still be a ways off.
daver - July 6, 2009
the only deal breaker could be the bankruptcy judge
my guess is that all sides including the MLB were in communication with this deal that entangles more than a ball park and ball player organization but also media.
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
But Ricketts is still doing about half in cash, right?
That should bode well, very well when dealing with bankruptcy…..except if the federal gov’t is involved with automobile companies.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
again having been in involved in a few bankruptcy involved deals
The creditors are fully engaged or represented.
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
In the case of the Angels and Arte Moreno
it was nearly instantaneous because Moreno was part of the ownership group that bought the Diamondbacks. The three most recent franchises that have changed hands to my knowledge are the Brewers, Rays, and Padres, and in the latter case, a similar dynamic was involved inasmuch as John Moores was selling to Jeff Moorad, former GM of the Diamondbacks (assuming I’m remembering this correctly). Marc Attanasio (Brewers) and Stewart Sternberg (Rays) are probably more appropriate comparisons for this transaction, unless Ricketts has had some involvement in baseball previously.
scareduck - July 6, 2009
So it will likely take longer...
…because Ricketts has no previous direct connections with MLB.
daver - July 6, 2009
I heard
one of the reasons he had a fast track in the bidding process was because he quietly hired a lawyer with 30+ years experience working with MLB owners.
I got the impression a lot of the MLB vetting happened during the open bidding stage and could have influenced Zell’s awarding the winning bid to Ricketts – because he felt he was pre-approved by owners. Zell couldn’t afford to sell to someone who wouldn’t be approved.
Selig has also been quoted saying the owners would do all they could to speed up the process once the sale is agreed.
JohnM - July 6, 2009
and does anyone
trust Bud to be able to make that happen? I don’t.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
I see your point
but yes, I do think that’s one think Bud can do. He is famous for his ability to get the owners to work together. That’s why he’s lasted so long.
JohnM - July 6, 2009
Believe me Bud
will do what he can to get MLB’s portion through as quickly as possible. The Cubs are one of MLB’s premiere franchises. He wants to do well by that and make sure MLB itself is not a hindrance to the process.
I can’t believe I endorse Bud on anything but in this case, the ramifications of him dragging his feet here won’t help MLBs’ image. He will do the right (quick) thing.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
I've got to believe
that MLB didn’t wait until today to start vetting Ricketts. It may not be as fast as Moreno taking over the Angels, but I doubt it’s going to take until the end of the season.
I bet the deal is finalized in August sometime.
Josh Timmers - July 6, 2009
I think the deal has tacit approval from MLB owners already.
If there are delays, it might come from the bankruptcy court.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
From what I remember from earlier in the season
The sale has to be approved by a majority (? two-thirds?) of the other owners. A special meeting could be called by commisioner Bud or they could do it at meetings in August.
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
I heard a few months ago
that MLB “could” hold a special meeting to vote; could be as quick as a few days or many weeks. IIRC 3/4ths of present owners need to approve.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
couldn't they do
a teleconference?
Oh, wait. It would be blacked out in 2/3 of the country.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
haha
Charlemagne - July 6, 2009
win
daver - July 6, 2009
Rec'd!
For giving me a lunchtime LOL.
Chris Dobbertean - July 6, 2009
Nice!
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
Was just wondering the same thing. Its not like all 30 have to be in the same physical place to do the vote.
AndrewJStone - July 6, 2009
Somebody boot up Surveymonkey, stat!
daver - July 6, 2009
punch the clown
to answer!
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
Awesome.
:)
slcathena - July 6, 2009
aw, shucks you guys...
it’s green… :D
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
Outstanding.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
Lets hope new ownership can bring this team what it wants
A championship. I think this change will do wonders for this team, just need to have Ricketts gets the right people throughout the organization.
jkobus - July 6, 2009
Finally
Hopefully this leads to good things. Stability is so important. I hope that the Rickett’s family puts some resources into the minor leagues. Our scouting department is shamefully small. As we all know Hendry has boxed himself in with some big contracts. Does a new GM come in. How about Crane? We shall see. I echo the sentiment on getting the right people in the organization. Hendry has some good things to bring to the table, but contract negotiations isn’t one of them. Sick of him bidding against himself, and leaving himself no room to maneuver.
Nibbles - July 6, 2009
Also, keep in mind what this article says.
Until we see a press release from Tribco or the Ricketts group, this can’t be considered finally final.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
formality.....I am confident all sides were present
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
Oh, absolutely correct.
But formalities need to be formalized before it’s official.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
Channeling Yogi Berra, Al?
daver - July 6, 2009
LOL
Unintentionally, intentionally.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
One step in the right direction
Not saying this will absolutely guarantee “payroll flexibility” but Kenney & Co sure should know the parameters to which they’re allowed to operate.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
if ricketts does allow hendry to spend money
first thing he should do is freddy sanchez and matt capps
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
we don't need
either of those guys.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
sure we don't need them but they can help
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
I'm not convinced of that
at all.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
freddy sanchez is hitting better than mike fontenot and would hit better than him if he was on the cubs
as for capps, i don’t really see him as the closer if he is traded on this team. In my eyes, he would replace david patton. not really an argument there. so ….. i guess you’re not convinced but i am.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
I really don't see Patton
going anywhere.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
I don't either ... at least for the near future
if they have a chance at a pretty good reliever, then he’s gone.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
It would be slightly enraging to see him leave
After they’ve played a man down for 1/2 the year just to keep him.
dr stabbingworth - July 6, 2009
You're not convinced that Sanchez is better than Fontenot/Blanco?
Wow. That’s certainly some optimism regarding Cubs players.
I’d be more inclined to agree on Capps (at least based on his performance this year), but not Sanchez. And I still think we could use another quality arm in the bullpen. That arm may be on the team already, but it hasn’t shown itself consistently yet.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Sanchez and Fontenot
appear to be equal fielders. And while I know Fontenot has struggled at the plate, he’s been hitting MUCH better in the last few weeks.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
Drew ...
you really think Sanchez wouldn’t be an upgrade over Fontenot?
I’m not saying the Cubs should get Sanchez at all costs, but if the price is right …
elgato - July 6, 2009
Well, Fontenot has gotten a bunch of singles this past week...
but for the past two weeks, his OPS is .592. I’d hardly say that means he’s going to match Sanchez as a hitter the rest of the year.
In anything more than a platoon role, Fontenot has been exposed as a below-average hitter. Conversely, Sanchez has been a solid hitter throughout his career. Sanchez has been a well-above average hitter in three of the last four years. Fontenot has had one above-average season ever, and that was in a very controlled platoon environment.
I’m not saying that Fontenot can’t possibly match Sanchez the rest of the way. But I think it’s incredibly optimistic to say you don’t think Sanchez could help this team.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
but there's no expectation
that Fonty will be anything other than a platoon at 2b. That’s why we got Miles/Freel/Blanco/Baker.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
you really didn't answer the question
Would Sanchez be more valuable than Fontenot?
elgato - July 6, 2009
If Fontenot can continue his production, and Baker can be competent too? It’s probably not worth the cost. Besides, isn’t Sanchez owed some huge amount of money for next year?
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
That's different than "can't help the team"
It may very well be that Sanchez is cost-prohibitive. But he almost certainly is an upgrade over what we have at 2B right now.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
exactly
elgato - July 6, 2009
Pre-season
Fontenot had significantly better projections than Sanchez. Sure, Sanchez has been much better over the course of the season so far, but we don’t get the benefit of those ABs.
I’m not on board with the “certainly” in your claim. I think it’s even money Fontenot out-hits Sanchez v. RHP for the rest of the season.
DGU - July 6, 2009
based on what?
LBR’s decent week after a month of sub-.200 hitting?
elgato - July 6, 2009
Based on
pre-season projections which are based on the hitters’ entire career and comparing that to other similar players.
And I know Sanchez can get super cold.
DGU - July 6, 2009
I know he's not a big-money player
… like Soriano or Bradley, but I’m amazed at the willingness of many posters to rush to the defense of Fontenot.
And, as SouthernCub just said, projections can be way off.
elgato - July 6, 2009
Projections aren't always right though, now are they?
Yes, Fontenot had lovely projections. So did Pie last year. Fukudome was projected to be a .900 OPS guy last year. Those projections are sometimes pretty accurate, but sometimes pretty inaccurate.
And I’m more inclined to believe the projections are off with guys who have very limited MLB careers (like Pie, Fontenot, Fukudome) than guys in the middle of their primes with several years of MLB experience.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Replace the first “sometimes” with “more often than not” and you’ve got yourself an accurate statement.
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
We're talking about projections for both players.
Sanchez got a blah .290/.332/.403, which is basically his career #s. His AVG is high and he’s showing a power spike so far this season unlike any other season. It’s more likely that he’s had a career first half, than that he’ll continue this through for a full career season.
So, sure projections aren’t always right, but they are right more often that individual bloggers – me and you both.
DGU - July 6, 2009
enough with projections
it’s comes down to production. Which player would give me more production? Fontenot or Sanchez. To me, the answer is clearly Sanchez.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
but that's based
on numbers to date. It has to be.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
future production is based on numbers to date?
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
how else do you come up with the numbers?
instead of looking at projections, Lexmarklover is looking at what Sanchez has done and is saying “he’ll keep doing that.”
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
What would you use instead?
Sanchez has been above average for most of his career.
Fontenot has been below average for most of his career.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
I'm just saying
that he’s rejecting one kind of projection for another. That’s all.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
i'm not really rejecting projections
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
In other words, you have to use some reference point...
Based on this year, Sanchez has outperformed Fontenot. Based on last year Fontenot was better. Based on there careers as an everyday player, Sanchez has been better. Based on the last 3 years, Sanchez has been better.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
wait for them to happen.
that’s what production is, isn’t it? the actual numbers?
I guess I’m nit-picking here, but to me projection and production are two different things.
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
but we can't know what future production will be
so we try to estimate based on projections and past production.
So we have competing projections — one that says that Sanchez is a .316/.355/.477 hitter, and one that says that Sanchez is a .290/.332/.403. The questions is, which projection do you believe?
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
Did you catch Fox's HR yesterday???
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
nope - I was playing him more to left-center.
that thing came out so fast, I felt like one of those outfielders when it’s obvious it’s going to be a homer. I just turned my head and watched another ballhawk get it.
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
Sanchez has proven in his career
that he can produce. Fontenot has proven that he can produce with another second baseman.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
Sanchez is a below average hitter
for his career against RHP: .284/.320/.396.
DGU - July 6, 2009
Sanchez is a career .300 hitter with a batting title
Pre - July 6, 2009
...and a 3 time All-Star.
Fishbone2 - July 6, 2009
Well that settles it.
Of course, by those arguments, he’s not nearly as good as Alfonso Soriano.
DGU - July 6, 2009
Career-wise he isn't as good as Soriano.
Fishbone2 - July 6, 2009
His OPS+ this year is 124
Fontenot’s is 78.
That’s not even close
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
Also
OPS+ for Sanchez vs. Cards: 161
vs. Brewers: 125
Sure, that’ll change as the sample size grows. But he’s done well against the key division rivals.
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
I've got an idea
let’s trade for Freddy Sanchez’ 2006 first half! Or, has anyone checked to see if Honus Wagner is available?
DGU - July 6, 2009
The point is
If the choice is between Fontenot and Sanchez, it isn’t close. They actually have the same OPS+, but Sanchez has shown he can do it as an everday player (three seasons over 100, including this year). Fontenot has not (one season over 100, last year).
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
*same career OPS+
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
*same career OPS+
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
Let's talk "not close"
Fontenot career v. RHP .281/.364/.445
Sanchez career v. RHP .284/.320/.396
Alright, now let’s talk “close”
Fontenot 2009 v. RHP .243/.333/.386
Sanchez career v. RHP .284/.320/.396
In other words, Mike Fontenot is probably going to be the better hitter v. RHP for the balance of the season. The only reason Cub fans think otherwise is that we are bitterly disappointed by him right now.
DGU - July 6, 2009
I'm still not sold on Fontenot as a year-round player
It’s different. I don’t think we can project from Fontenot’s stats as a backup.
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
You can dislike projections all you want.
The fact is Freddy Sanchez WILL NOT hit .316/.355/.477 for the rest of this season.
How do you propose we figure out what he will hit?
DGU - July 6, 2009
Actually, that's not a fact...
it’s a likely probability, but it’s not a fact. There is some chance that Sanchez will hit .316/.355/.477. It’s just REALLY small.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Thank you for the clarification.
Rhetorically, it’s a little awkward to say, “The statistical near certainty is…”
DGU - July 6, 2009
You could have said he's just really unlikely
You’ve made a lot of (seemingly) definitive statements based on your projections. I just wanted to make sure to clarify that there’s a lot variability in those projections.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Sure, of course there's variability.
And what I’m arguing is that Fontenot is just as likely to out-hit Sanchez against RHP as Sanchez is to out-hit Fontenot. This seems pretty straight-forward when looking at their career #s. Sanchez does not set the bar very high.
DGU - July 6, 2009
I don't know about just as likely...
considering that Fontenot has very little evidence as an everyday player.
You’re basing a lot on projections of a player who has been limited to facing predominantly RHP compared to a player who has a lot bigger sample against all pitchers.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
But we don't really care how they hit LHP do we?
(w/o looking them up) Baker’s career #s = Sanchez’ career #s v. LHP, I believe. So, really the question of “Does he help the ballclub?” comes down to how he hits RHP. Fontenot’s 2009 OBP/SLG already approach Sanchez’ career OBP/SLG v. RHP, and that’s with Mike struggling so far.
DGU - July 6, 2009
see
I knew someone could make the argument better than I could.
drewishdrewid - July 6, 2009
Now you introduce Baker's defense...
You’re assuming that Baker will get the PT at 2B against LHP. I don’t know that he’ll get regular time there, and I imagine that Sanchez’s defense is superior to Baker’s.
And Sanchez’s offense is as good as Baker’s vs LHP. It’s probably better actually when you account for ballpark effects. Both have an .898 OPS vs LHP.
So lo and behold, Sanchez IS still an upgrade for the team!
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Is he enough of an upgrade
when you count 1) the trade cost and 2) the $$$ cost, because basically we’re looking at him being a smidge better than Fonty v. RHP (but only if Fonty doesn’t come back towards his career #s), and he’s a smidge better than Baker v. LHP, although Baker is 3 years younge and making the league min.
DGU - July 6, 2009
That I don't know...
we don’t know what the cost will be. But that was never my point. My point was that he could help the team on the field this year.
He’s almost certainly an upgrade to the MLB team right now. And that’s assuming that Fontenot really is great against RHP. Remember that prior to this year he was used very selectively, even against RHP.
Honestly, we don’t know whether Sanchez will be cost-effective. But I think it’s fair to say, even in the best case for Fontenot, that Sanchez would be expected to be more effective overall than Baker.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Here's where I disagree
In the best case for Fontenot – he is much more valuable than Sanchez v. RHP. I think you misread what I wrote. Fontenot’s 2009 is already close to Sanchez’ career averages v. RHP. This disappointing – send-him-to-AAA-now-Fontenot we’ve been watching this season is almost as good as career-average-Sanchez right now.
DGU - July 6, 2009
I didn't misread you...
Perhaps you misread me. I said that in the best case scenario for Fontenot, Sanchez is still a better option than Baker vs LHP (when you consider defense).
And again, that’s assuming that Fontenot really is capable of being a full platoon player. Remember – his best numbers vs RHP came in very controlled environments vs RHP.
If Fontenot isn’t able to bring his average vs RHP up, then Sanchez is the better option as an everyday player to Fontenot/Baker.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Well
Brian Roberts, Chase Utley or Robinson Cano could probably “help” us too. You can’t ever just say “this guy could help us” without looking at the cost or it gets into the realm of the absurd quickly.
Archie - July 6, 2009
Fontenot's career numbers are as a backup
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
he has hit .291, .344, .304, .271, and now .316.
the last 5 years. How can you look at those numbers and say that he can’t continue to hit the way he’s been hitting.
But really, my main point wasn’t about projections and stuff like that, it was simply who would produce more for this team. I think the answer is sanchez.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
So basically this argument is one person thinks one thing and has reasonable evidence to support that conclusion and another person thinks something else with other reasonable evidence to support that conclusion.
Over now?
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
Well said
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
my intention was never to start anything
i was simply saying that sanchez can help this team out.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
I'm looking particularly at the SLG.
Sanchez has never SLGed like this before. He’s hitting more doubles and home runs than he ever has before. Players in their 30s tend to stop doing things they have never done before.
DGU - July 6, 2009
throw the numbers out
who would you rather have Fontenot or Sanchez?
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
uh oh... this could get ugly...
Never say “throw the numbers out” in a room full of sabermagicians… ;-)
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
lol
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
DGU at this very moment:
daver - July 6, 2009
Throw the #s out?
Do you want me to choose based on looks or who would help the most if I was stranded on a desert island?
I’m not sure what you’re asking- which do I think is a better ballplayer if I wasn’t looking at their 2009 stats?
DGU - July 6, 2009
alright don't throw the numbers out
who’s the better player?
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
They are comparable players
with different strengths and weaknesses. Sanchez has shown tremendous contact ability. Fontenot has shown surprising power. Sanchez has a better track record of success, but not enough success to counter Fontenot’s potential.
Given their contracts, I would not trade Fontenot for Sanchez if that deal was offered to me.
Got to sign off for the afternoon. Have a great day everyone!
DGU - July 6, 2009
um.. wait until the end of the season?
If it’s so important to figure out now what he will hit the rest of this season, do it the old-fashioned American way…
…Start a pool and place your bets! All proceeds go towards the BCB Bash in November!
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
I'm less against Sanchez's projections...
I’m more skeptical of Fontenot’s projections. I think a .290/.332/.403 line is pretty reasonable for Sanchez. But that’s based on a relatively large MLB sample.
The difference is that Fontenot’s projections are based on a much more limited MLB experience, and a very specific MLB experience at that.
I’m a stathead as much as the next guy (I do similar stuff for a living). But I have trouble believing projections on guys with such limited MLB experience.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Indeed
How can you project a full season of Fontenot when he’s had so few at-bats against LHP.
dr stabbingworth - July 6, 2009
I don't think he would be when you count in salary owed.
I’d rather get Yunel Escobar, or someone who plays a solid SS.
DGU - July 6, 2009
the price would be steeper though
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
I doubt Escobar is available...
given how cheap he is. And the price tag in terms of prospects would be much higher if Escobar was available.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Escobar's in the rumor mill
Atlanta wants a corner OF bat.
DGU - July 6, 2009
he's also in Bobby Cox's doghouse
apparently Escobar has made several mental lapses in the last few weeks. Cox is getting exasperated.
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
Not just the last few weeks, I've heard.
DGU - July 6, 2009
yeah, he's been a problem-child for awhile, baseball-wise
but somehow something happens and he manages to get back into Cox’s good graces, or at least out of the doghouse. But it sure sounds like Cox has reached (or is close to reaching) his breaking point this time.
Not sure I’d want to acquire a player who couldn’t play for Bobby Cox.
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
Really?
Hendry make actually like him then.
MPH73 - July 6, 2009
Does that mean Frank Wren will throw Francouer
And a batting helmet into the deal? If the batting helmet isn’t part of the initial offer, I’d insist upon it – after all, you want to acquire a piece that has actual value at the plate.
Clutch16 - July 6, 2009
I want some Nutella and Marshmallow Fluff too!
Cub Style - July 6, 2009
but do you think the platoon of Fontenot/Blanco would be better than Sanchez
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
And the other half of that platoon could be Sanchez...
who is better than Miles/Freel/Blanco/Baker. Thus, he’d help the team. And he’d be insurance in the event that Fontenot wasn’t really as good as last season would have suggested.
Remember – it wasn’t just a platoon. It was a very specific platoon. Despite being what should have been the primary part of the platoon, Fontenot started less than 50 games last year. So you’d need someone to play the other 2/3 of the schedule.
At the very least, Sanchez is a HUGE upgrade to the RH part of a platoon. At the most, he’s a big upgrade over Fontenot as well. In any case (even assuming the optimistic side that Fontenot will bounce back), Sanchez would help the team.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
He often over-values Cubs players
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
Need? No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have Sanchez or another reliever...
Those are the only positions at which bringing in another player are even up for discussion.
Can we win with what we have now? Probably, if things start falling into place. Would it be easier to win with a better 2B and an improved bullpen? Absolutely.
The question would be what the asking price is. But I certainly wouldn’t write off making a move just because we don’t necessarily need a player.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
I don't think it's as if Tom Ricketts is in the offices at Clark & Addison today dictating moves.
Al Yellon - July 6, 2009
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post...
but I’m in complete agreement that he’s not there yet (nor will he be there anytime soon).
I was merely commenting on the idea that the Cubs shouldn’t consider upgrades to the team if available at the right price.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
But he might be saying in office
“Where do I want to sit at tonights game inside my Wrigley Field”?
ak123 - July 6, 2009
Another option: Peralta
Apparently, Jhonny Peralta is on the block. What about picking him up for SS, and moving Theriot to everyday 2B?
Plus, Peralta would add to the Cubs distinguished tradition of middle-infielders with common sounding names that are spelled in an uncommon fashion, joining Ryne (sounds like Ryan) Sandberg and Shawon (sounds like Sean) Dunston….
Chadnudj - July 6, 2009
Interesting. Why not say, sounds like "shawn"?
Even though Sean isn’t an uncommon spelling, it reads like “seen”.
By the way, Ryne isn’t pronounced “Ryan”. It’s one syllable – “rine”.
Shanghai Badger - July 6, 2009
hahah. I heard this rumor over the weekend. There is a possibility of this happening.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
Why?
Both his hitting and defensive stats are sub-Theriot. He’s not an upgrade in any sense.
dr stabbingworth - July 6, 2009
3 words of the english language
change of scenery
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
But don't you remember?
We need to fleece the Pirates in order for the season to be a success!
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
Like hell they don't
Those guys help in two areas the Cubs are weak; lineup flexibility and the bullpen.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
DAGNABIT!
So, when this is finalized I’ll have to drop calling the Tribune and the Cubs the Cubune.
Good that the Cubs will now again be a locally family owned franchise. And now the ship that is the Tribune can capsize.
And hopefully the other news is, “Crane Kenney, your last check is in the mail.”
DrCrawdad - July 6, 2009
Oh yes
Oh yes the moronic thing the Sox fans came up with calling it the Cubune because sometimes there’s 10 more words about the Cubs in the Tribune than the Sox.
It would be amazing what might happen if all the time Sox fans spent whining about that and measuring words and column space devoted to the Cubs and counting words actually was spent doing something useful.
Even if it was true the Cubs were covered overwhelmingly more it makes sense. Kind of like House getting more coverage in TV Guide than Lie to Me. More people watch House therefore they get more coverage.
puckishcubsfan - July 6, 2009
I, for one, haven’t paid attention to the amount of coverage of each team. In fact considering how much more popular the Cubs are than the Sox I’d expect the media to give the Cubs more coverage. However, it seems to me that the amount of coverage given to each team is about the same.
What has bothered me though is the attacks, smears and putdowns the Cubune has published thru the years.
If you think Sox fans are silly for complaining about the Cubune’s coverage of the Sox, then I’m sure you’d think that Cub fans who complained about Cubs coverage on ESPN AM1000 (when they were the Sox flagship) and those who now moan about The SCORE coverage of the Cubs are equally silly.
Here are a few pertinent comments by the former Cubune public editor:
DrCrawdad - July 6, 2009
Use your vast creativity, I say
“Tom and the Cubetts”? “The Chirping Ricketts”? “The Ricketty Cubs”?
The possibilities are endless!
Clutch16 - July 6, 2009
Cubbie Creativity, WOW!
DrCrawdad - July 8, 2009
Not just increased payroll, but...
..will the JumboTron on the RF rooftop be up in time for the playoffs?
Dan Serafini - July 6, 2009
Let's get there first
cubswgnrocks - July 6, 2009
All I want Ricketts to say to Jim Hendry
“Do whatever you can do to win a championship this season”.
I really wonder what sort of payroll flexibilty will be given?
ak123 - July 6, 2009
Nothing like taking uncertainity from the basic foundation
This stroke is a good thing and although we don’t know the marching orders it appeared transparent that until this was done the payroll seemed frozen….(see DeRosa deal).
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
This might put fear in other teams
As in “crap, the team has been sold. They might be able to acquire anyone”.
This might also lead to more teams calling Jim Hendry seeing if they want to take on any contracts of some good players?
ak123 - July 6, 2009
Right - at least there's the chance that flexibility exists...
I don’t think payroll flexibility is a big concern (as I don’t think we need to be major spenders at this point). But it’s nice to know that it’s at least possible that flexibility may be there. It definitely appeared that the payroll was locked in while the sale was in limbo.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
If anything
Jim is gonna get some calls from GM’s that might have thought the teams hands were tied.
ak123 - July 6, 2009
OT
but any word on the roster moves for today?
TJ3117 - July 6, 2009
I've been looking about every half hour.
I haven’t seen a anything. However, I’m not sure when the typical time is for them to release it. I guess it depends on what Soriano is going to do. If he goes on the DL, I would imagine that Kevin Hart and Sam Fuld would go. I don’t think Lou will part with Micah because he’s the lone pure lefty on the bench.
I think Fonte sealed his stay with the last series. I don’t think there is any possible way that Fox gets sent down. That would be preposterous.
TCobb1911 - July 6, 2009
If Alf doesn't get DL'd
I think it will be Fuld, Hart and Spellcheck.
TCobb1911 - July 6, 2009
I really hope that's who it is...
Sorry Fuld, but Fox is more valuable right now.
CubsBullsBears - July 6, 2009
He is but Hoff isn't
nevertheless I think Fuld is on a plane do Des Moines as I write.
Doggie Stalker - July 6, 2009
The Cubs have tended to wait to announce their callups/sendowns
till just before ballgames, in order to minimize the opposing team’s ability to talk through players pre-game, I guess. I don’t expect we’ll hear until an hour before gametime.
DGU - July 6, 2009
DUH
Good call. Should’ve thought of that. Thanks.
TCobb1911 - July 6, 2009
But I wanna know NOW!!
::whiny::
Allie - July 6, 2009
Ray Fontenot, George Frazier and Scot Thompson
Shanghai Badger - July 6, 2009
Now can we afford to send Miles to the Mendoza garbage heap?
cubbybear - July 6, 2009
That would be lovely...
I see no reason to bring Miles back at this point.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Approx $3.8M to the heap???
That’s a lot to swallow knowing they’re already paying $6M of Marquis salary and nearly all of the ~$4.0M to Vizcaino.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
He might get picked up by another team at league minimum
Then we’d only be throwing away $3.2Mish!
madcow256 - July 6, 2009
I so don't care. I hate Aaron Miles.
He’s awful.
slcathena - July 6, 2009
If Ricketts could be as good of an owner as Arte Moreno
then Cubs fans, it’s truly happening!?!?!!?!?!?!?
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
If the first thing Ricketts does
is lower beer prices, he’ll win us all over instantaneously.
Josh Timmers - July 6, 2009
Is that what Moreno did?
and if so, did that help contribute to the halo’s 2002 WS title?
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
He did it...
and while it may not have directly help to win their WS rings, I’m sure it didn’t hurt in fan goodwill to keep the fans invested in a team that seems to actually care what they think.
CubFan81 - July 6, 2009
But did he invent the rally monkey?
First time I saw that, I thought OK, cool for S.Cal….
So it’s Disney (see below) that owned the team when they won in ’02.
blackhawk24 - July 7, 2009
Likely not,
Moreno wasn’t the Angels’ owner in ’02, Disney was. Now there was a corporate owner that brought a championship. And Arte only paid $180 mil for the angels, what a bargain, compared to what Ricketts is paying. And for the record, Moreno has won 0 world series since taking over the angels.
dtc0405 - July 6, 2009
If Fox is in danger of being sent down ...
I think the Cubs ought to call the Pirates and see if Jake and somebody else (Fontenot?) would be enough to get Sanchez.
elgato - July 6, 2009
I really hope
Fox is in zero danger of getting sent down. If they send him down I would guess its because Lou and Jim drank a handle of Wild Turkey this morning.
TCobb1911 - July 6, 2009
Frankly ...
there may never be a better chance to trade Fox for maximum value. I’m a big fan, but considering we’re locked in at the corner infield and outfield spots until 2011 — meaning Jake has no place to play — why not try to get somebody like Sanchez to make a big surge this year?
If the Pirates would take Fox and Fontenot, I make that deal. Think of the lineup and bench:
Fukudome/Johnson
Sanchez
Lee
Ramirez
Bradley
Soriano
Soto
Theriot
Bench
Baker, Hoff, Hill, Blanco, Fuld
elgato - July 6, 2009
I would make that deal too...
If they don’t deal him, he better stay with the big club.
TCobb1911 - July 6, 2009
agreed
elgato - July 6, 2009
Too much for Sanchez
If Fox does get sent down, he’ll be back rather soon. It’d take a little bigger offer to move him.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
You may be on to something...
I change my mind. I wouldn’t do that deal.
TCobb1911 - July 6, 2009
I think the Cubs are looking at the next 7 games first
getting them to the ASB. Nearly the whole team gets that 3 days off; nice very nice.
Then the next tier is right after the break when they go to DC and Phi before coming back home to 7 against the Reds and ’stros.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
if Fox had a place to play ...
or we knew one of Lee, Bradley, Soriano or Ramirez was going to the DL, I’d hold back. Otherwise, I see him sitting a lot.
elgato - July 6, 2009
I figure Rami
will not play the 7 games immediately before the break, especially Wednesday when they’re already off Thursday. That’s only 1 game but I have to figure even against the Cards when they’re not throwing the best pitcher, that would be a game for Rami to sit too. This will ease him into the lineup more softly.
blackhawk24 - July 6, 2009
Ramirez...
Is going to need days off pretty often, Bradley can’t play more than 2 games in a row or a day game after night, Soriano should be rested or DLd, so I think Fox could get some ABs.
CubsBullsBears - July 6, 2009
Just a thought...
and I really don’t know the answer to this, but: has there actually been any speculation around the Pirates willingness to deal Sanchez? I know he has a rather expensive option for next year that will (has already?) become automatic based on plate appearances/games played/at-bats, but he seems to be a fairly useful offensive and defensive player at a position which is short on players who are strong in both aspects. I know the Pirates used to be run by, umm, less than great management, but do we really think they’re going to deal Sanchez?
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
No idea...
Purely speculation. I try to avoid discussing the possibility of trades, because we have no idea about that. I do find it fun to discuss who I think might help (or not help), regardless of the possibility of acquisition.
SouthernCub - July 6, 2009
Oh I agree
These types of discussions are wildly entertaining, especially while suffering through a boring Monday at work.
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
fair question
elgato - July 6, 2009
yes, i think the pirates will deal sanchez
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
Based on what?
That’s not meant to be attacking, but sincere. Is there some information you have, or is it based on a gut feeling (or something in between)?
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
What the Pirates have done this year
Rumors about Sanchez going to the Giants, Twins
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
and when i said what the pirates have done this year
i mean like trading Nyjer Morgan to the Nationals, Nate to the Braves. They’re trying to go young and Sanchez is 30.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
Are they trying to get young or bad?
I have trouble telling sometimes. It’s not like McLouth was using a walker to move around the OF.
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
yeah their trades have been really questionable.
Nyjer Morgan to the Nats was just a head scratcher because they received Lastings Milledge, notorious bad boy. My point was if the Pirates had the balls to trade Nyjer Morgan, a pretty decent player for someone that hasn’t proven anything, what makes you think Sanchez is off limits.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
Moving McLouth was not indicative of a fire sale as he was blocking a very good player in Andrew McCutchen
so they maintained a decent level of production from the position AND brought in some pretty good prospects from Atlanta, to boot. Not bad.
Per mykalmorgan’s comment below, I’m curious to see if the Pirates have similar MLB-ready talent waiting in the wings behind Sanchez. My guess is not, so trading Sanchez would be a good indicator that the fire sale has begun.
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
You may be correct
But from what I’ve read, the Pirates were trading from a surplus and not necessarily to get younger, but to get cheaper. Two questions: do the Pirates have a viable replacement for Sanchez at second base? And who would you see the Cubs giving up to get said Fred?
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
replacement for Sanchez?
I’m not really sure, but I’m guess that they want a second baseman in the trade. In a rumored deal with the twins, Alexi Casilla could be going to the Pirates. Honestly, I don’t know what the Cubs would have to give up, but I know the Pirates are actively shopping him to basically everybody.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
Sullivan
I just lost 30 points off my IQ listening to Paul Sullivan on WGN Radio. He basically said the Cubs should get rid of all the high paying players because the Iowa kids are nice guys,
So let’s be 500 with nice guys this year instead of winning 97 with guys that don’t kiss media butts.
puckishcubsfan - July 6, 2009
probably not about media interaction
Sullivan is very likely wrong, but I doubt he said something like that just because the young kids are nicer to reporters. Besides Milton, what veteran who is a jerk to the media (at times) could be replaced by a kid who isn’t? Soriano seems pretty media tolerant, and I doubt anyone could advocate for the benching of Lee, Ramirez, Theriot, etc.
elgato - July 6, 2009
probably not about media interaction
Sullivan is very likely wrong, but I doubt he said something like that just because the young kids are nicer to reporters. Besides Milton, what veteran who is a jerk to the media (at times) could be replaced by a kid who isn’t? Soriano seems pretty media tolerant, and I doubt anyone could advocate for the benching of Lee, Ramirez, Theriot, etc.
elgato - July 6, 2009
I see I'm not the only one having trouble with double-posts today.
daver - July 6, 2009
reporters have a very self-serving perspective
it is their job, not their hobby, pastime or emotional release…..they just care about the story line.
Ivy Walls - July 6, 2009
And I will make a suggestion to the Trib
to get rid of all high-paying reporters like himself and give his job to a kid just out of journalism school.
JFCubFan - July 6, 2009
Maybe he just meant they're nice players... as in they play pretty well.
SackMan - July 6, 2009
Only 30 a points drop ?!?!
I don’t know who’s worse; Sullivan or Rogers. Having to listen to their lame coverage of “details” on CTL – which in its own right is an albatross; note to Tom Ricketts: Re-format CTL – makes me want to either puke or switch right over to ESPN.
blackhawk24 - July 7, 2009
Let's get rid of Fukudome and get Alex Rios!!! ;)
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
But Fukudome projects to slug .898 against pitchers with a middle name of "Fred"
cocknfire - July 6, 2009
I LIKE THIS SUGGESTION
LETS JUST TRADE EVERYONE ESPECIALLY THAT IDIOT BRADLEY
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
i was kidding ....
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
I was referencing
a very special fanpost.
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
lol
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
And definitely joking as well.
mykalmorgan - July 6, 2009
When I declared today as "Cubs Moving Day"
Here, I certainly didn’t mean the entire organization.
So, between this news, three guys coming off the DL at once, and the matchup of two phenoms on the mound tonight on ESPN, do you think the Cubs will get as much SportsCenter coverage as what Dustin Pedroia had for lunch today?
Clutch16 - July 6, 2009
No, his lunch is way more interesting!
Especially if it’s clam “chowda head” soup.
propheteer - July 6, 2009
Freel traded to KC for PTBNL
Itchy - July 6, 2009
lol it's happening?!?!?!?!?!!?!
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
He was gone anyway
dr stabbingworth - July 6, 2009
yeah i know. I'm just a happening boy.
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
But the Cubs got a PTBNL
better than nothing, yes?
JFCubFan - July 6, 2009
probably greinke and teahen
jesus christos - July 6, 2009
lol.
slcathena - July 6, 2009
Link, please?
I guess that means he cleared waivers. Wait. Why would KC trade for him rather than just claim him off waivers?
daver - July 6, 2009
Maybe KC claimed him
dr stabbingworth - July 6, 2009
D'oh, Al just posted about it on the front page.
Let’s get out there!
daver - July 6, 2009
or maybe Joakim Soria is the PTBNL
lexmarklover - July 6, 2009
sweet
daver - July 6, 2009
Now that the Sale is final...
We finally have the resources to get rid of Freel!
digitalbenjamin - July 6, 2009
Winning
This is very good news, but let’s temper our excitement and hope for just the first championship. :)
propheteer - July 6, 2009
Gotta get 1
before you can get 11…
Allie - July 6, 2009
Hey, we agreed on something.
propheteer - July 6, 2009
shocking, i know!
Allie - July 6, 2009
There's a first time for everything!
propheteer - July 6, 2009
I keep checking in here...
hoping to learn who was sent down/traded to make room for the guys coming back. But nothing!
kanderber - July 6, 2009
+1
Slow news day
dr stabbingworth - July 6, 2009
DGU posted above
that they probably won’t announce it until closer to game time.
sue369 - July 6, 2009
Who Are We Going to Blame When the Sale Goes Through
If the Cubs don’t win the World Series in the next 5 years?
Wrigley for not spending enough money?
Wrigley for selling to the Trib?
The Trib for not spending enough money?.
The Trib for selling to Ricketts?
Ricketts for not spending enough money?
Cuban for not buying the team?
Etc. etc. etc.
Chodes - July 6, 2009
Peavy
Shanghai Badger - July 6, 2009
Duh. Of course.
Chodes - July 6, 2009
Canada
ballhawk - July 6, 2009
The Man.
daver - July 6, 2009
Freel's imaginary friend.
slcathena - July 6, 2009
Roberts
The drooling over B.Rob was at least double that of P-V.
blackhawk24 - July 7, 2009
Our long semi-National nightmare is over
bren - July 6, 2009
Not quite yet. But we're getting closer to waking up.
daver - July 6, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.