You overestimate the intellect of the average Yankees fan.

I know Yankee fans would be surprised, but would they be angry?

He's currently hitting .316. He's a lifetime Yankee. He's the Captain, and Mr. Count The Rings. The average fan would be furious if the Yankees let him go on waivers for nothing, just to save cash.

Mystery team=Atlanta Braves.

I'm not a Yankee fan, but if I were I don't think I'd be outraged that my team escaped paying $25M-34M over the next two seasons for a replacement-level SS.

Troll.

So it's the Dodgers.

Teams I've seen reported not to be on his no-trade list: Rangers, Yankees.

The Red Sox put Crawford and Punto on waivers yesterday.

I'm glad you're not Theo.

Not sure what the Cubs new salary model is but for most teams it seems to be you get (essentially) the same budget each season plus inflation. If you are under budget you don't get to bank if for a future season. It's "profit" for the owner. This doesn't make much sense if you take 2 minutes to think about it, but it sure seems like how most teams work.

Theo is sitting on a huge pile of money that he realistically isn't going to be able to spend in any good way the next season or two. No-trade clauses might get in the way, but that money could buy an awful lot if he looked to spend it on a guy like Lee compared to the free agent market. You got to figure Jorge Soler falls into that line of thinking. Massive overpay, but what else productive is Theo going to do with the money in the short run.

Let's pretend that the Cubs put in the claim, he's not on the no-trade list, and the Phillies let him go. Maybe the new CBA prevents this, but what if in the winter Theo offers to cover all but $1M a year of Lee's contract. What would he get in return? If you are the Rangers, doesn't Profar become available? As desperate as the Royals are for pitching, wouldn't they trade Wil Myers? I would think that if you are essentially offering a free Cliff Lee, there is no untouchable prospect in a trade and you probably can get your hands on at least two A grade prospects, maybe three.

That would mean the Cubs are paying tens of millions for the rights to prospects, which seems like a huge overpay. But if you are Theo, would you rather do that or (b) sign an overpriced free agent that might be old by the time the Cubs are good or (c) give the money back to Ricketts.

To me, it seems like the best thing Theo can do right now is step in can solve the financial problems of teams while acquiring players, who when ignoring the contract, are still very good talents.

I don't think any team on this planet has enough prospects in their system to equal an 87 million dollar cost for the Cubs.

I don't think any team on this planet has enough prospects in their system to equal an 87 million dollar cost for the Cubs.

That was kind of my point. You aren't allowed to buy prospects like you can in soccer so this would be a way to get around that pesky fact.

$87M is obvious a lot, but it's money to burn unless Theo has a better way to use that type of cash over the next couple of seasons and/or if he doesn't spend it now he gets to spend it on top of his "budget" in future seasons. It would be a massive overpay and Ricketts wouldn't go for it since he'd rather pocket the cash, but from Theo's perspective I think it makes plenty of sense.

The Cubs aren't going to contend in the next couple of seasons. Say they do sign Zack Greinke. Isn't that essentially blowing $50M or so for the first two seasons of the contract?

That was kind of my point. You aren't allowed to buy prospects like you can in soccer so this would be a way to get around that pesky fact.


My point was that nobody would agree to claim Lee and 90+ million dollars in salary so they can trade it away for 4 million and prospects. No team on the planet has enough prospects on hand that a team would be willing to spend 87 million dollars over the next 4 years on them. If Theo needs to spend 24 million dollars a year for 3 years just to land one or two prospects in total then he isn't a very good GM.

Say they do sign Zack Greinke. Isn't that essentially blowing $50M or so for the first two seasons of the contract?

Probably, which is why Theo has already stated publicly that the Cubs will not be going after marquee FA this offseason.

MLB.com:

Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. declined to confirm or deny the validity of the story, but added: "It's irrelevant. He's not going anywhere."

Regardless of whether it's "standard procedure" or not, if you literally would not trade a guy under any circumstances, then I don't know what the point of putting him on even revocable waivers would be. So I call shenanigans, Ruben.

My point was that nobody would agree to claim Lee and 90+ million dollars in salary so they can trade it away for 4 million and prospects. No team on the planet has enough prospects on hand that a team would be willing to spend 87 million dollars over the next 4 years on them.

Then spend $50M to buy prospects, or $30M.

It is sort of an interesting question. If players could be sold like in European soccer, and the Rangers were selling, what would the transfer fee be for Jurickson Profar? I'd guess about $25M or so.

On the other hand Barmes would then be on the bench instead of Josh Harrison who is more positionally versatile.

Barmes has played 2B, 3B, and SS in his career, as well as a cameo or two at 1B and the OF; he is no less positionally versatile than Harrison.

-- MWE