Can Jason Heyward Fucking Hit Ever

[SKO]

Can you explain why it's not realistic? Or wouldn't be if Heyward had opted out, etc. What makes you think the Cubs could not afford to pay him the same mega contract Boston or New York could offer. If they can't, shouldn't we ask why?

Also I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have signed Heyward when they did. It was the right move. Heyward needed to hit though, so he could either A) Opt out or B) Be, I dunno, fuckin useful if he stayed.

Why isn't it realiistic? Harper currently makes 21 mildo/year. Put him on the open market, and you're probably looking at something close to 10/300. Which sets the market for Bryant. So the Cubs could have $600 million committed to two guys, then what happens when Rizzo comes due? You are basically looking at the Angels, who have a half billion wrapped up in Pujols and Trout.

Or you sign Harper, because he will be 25 when he hits FA (and it's probably gonna be more like 10/400) to a 10 year deal, and in the 3 years you have all three of Bryant/Rizzo/Harper together you win some rings, and then when Rizzo and Bryant hit FA, you decide if it makes sense to re-sign them both, or maybe you have someone else in the system, etc. There is no law that says they have to try and extend every one of those guys, in fact trying to do so is how you become the Phillies. The benefit of a 10 year contract for Harper is that he would only be 35 when it ended AND you'd get 3 years of playing him with Bryant and Rizzo before you even need to make that decision. Bryant won't be up for an extension until he's 29 years old, Rizzo will be in his 30s. Both of them would make a lot less sense as candidates for mega-contracts for the Cubs than Harper, sentimentality be damned. Plus, like I said, only the Harper mega-contract also buys you three years of all three of them together.

[Oleg]

Can you explain why it's not realistic? Or wouldn't be if Heyward had opted out, etc. What makes you think the Cubs could not afford to pay him the same mega contract Boston or New York could offer. If they can't, shouldn't we ask why?

Also I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have signed Heyward when they did. It was the right move. Heyward needed to hit though, so he could either A) Opt out or B) Be, I dunno, fuckin useful if he stayed.

Why isn't it realiistic? Harper currently makes 21 mildo/year. Put him on the open market, and you're probably looking at something close to 10/300. Which sets the market for Bryant. So the Cubs could have $600 million committed to two guys, then what happens when Rizzo comes due? You are basically looking at the Angels, who have a half billion wrapped up in Pujols and Trout.

This is like saying that Tommy and Hank Aaron have the most HRs by brothers in MLB history.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Can you explain why it's not realistic? Or wouldn't be if Heyward had opted out, etc. What makes you think the Cubs could not afford to pay him the same mega contract Boston or New York could offer. If they can't, shouldn't we ask why?

Also I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have signed Heyward when they did. It was the right move. Heyward needed to hit though, so he could either A) Opt out or B) Be, I dunno, fuckin useful if he stayed.

Why isn't it realiistic? Harper currently makes 21 mildo/year. Put him on the open market, and you're probably looking at something close to 10/300. Which sets the market for Bryant. So the Cubs could have $600 million committed to two guys, then what happens when Rizzo comes due? You are basically looking at the Angels, who have a half billion wrapped up in Pujols and Trout.

Or you sign Harper, because he will be 25 when he hits FA (and it's probably gonna be more like 10/400) to a 10 year deal, and in the 3 years you have all three of Bryant/Rizzo/Harper together you win some rings, and then when Rizzo and Bryant hit FA, you decide if it makes sense to re-sign them both, or maybe you have someone else in the system, etc. There is no law that says they have to try and extend every one of those guys, in fact trying to do so is how you become the Phillies. The benefit of a 10 year contract for Harper is that he would only be 35 when it ended AND you'd get 3 years of playing him with Bryant and Rizzo before you even need to make that decision. Bryant won't be up for an extension until he's 29 years old, Rizzo will be in his 30s. Both of them would make a lot less sense as candidates for mega-contracts for the Cubs than Harper, sentimentality be damned. Plus, like I said, only the Harper mega-contract also buys you three years of all three of them together.

All this stuff is meaningless until we get some idea of the Cubs 2019 TV revenue. That talk's been very quiet of late.  I do wonder if the dollars will still be there in two years or if they have to do an in-house streaming deal that the revenue isn't tied to a third party. Right now, if the Cubs go 0-162, WGN, WLS and Comcast are all on the hook for a fixed payment. If the streaming is in house, the Cubs are taking all the risk (and all the upside) that the cash will be there.

[CBStew]

begging for a bath in marinara sauce.

I defy anyone to erase this picture from his head.

[PenFoe]

I can't believe you assholes are going to make me defend and agree with SKO.
I'm not sure they win the World Series without him and yeah, definitely always going to remember him for the Rain Delay Speech, which will go down forever in Cubs lore. Heyward seems like a good dude, great.

But I don't see the big deal with pointing out that this guy sucks.

He's here for another million years and a trillion dollars, so if he could not be completely shitty, that'd be great.

[Quality Start Machine]

Can you explain why it's not realistic? Or wouldn't be if Heyward had opted out, etc. What makes you think the Cubs could not afford to pay him the same mega contract Boston or New York could offer. If they can't, shouldn't we ask why?

Also I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have signed Heyward when they did. It was the right move. Heyward needed to hit though, so he could either A) Opt out or B) Be, I dunno, fuckin useful if he stayed.

Why isn't it realiistic? Harper currently makes 21 mildo/year. Put him on the open market, and you're probably looking at something close to 10/300. Which sets the market for Bryant. So the Cubs could have $600 million committed to two guys, then what happens when Rizzo comes due? You are basically looking at the Angels, who have a half billion wrapped up in Pujols and Trout.

Or you sign Harper, because he will be 25 when he hits FA (and it's probably gonna be more like 10/400) to a 10 year deal, and in the 3 years you have all three of Bryant/Rizzo/Harper together you win some rings, and then when Rizzo and Bryant hit FA, you decide if it makes sense to re-sign them both, or maybe you have someone else in the system, etc. There is no law that says they have to try and extend every one of those guys, in fact trying to do so is how you become the Phillies. The benefit of a 10 year contract for Harper is that he would only be 35 when it ended AND you'd get 3 years of playing him with Bryant and Rizzo before you even need to make that decision. Bryant won't be up for an extension until he's 29 years old, Rizzo will be in his 30s. Both of them would make a lot less sense as candidates for mega-contracts for the Cubs than Harper, sentimentality be damned. Plus, like I said, only the Harper mega-contract also buys you three years of all three of them together.

Do you honestly think that the Cubs are putting the amount of time and money into marketing Bryant and Rizzo to let either of them walk? This is still a business, and those two guys put an awful lot of butts into seats. Sure, Harper could do that as well, but it would be a pretty damn hard pivot now that Bryzzo is (are?) the face(s) of the franchise.

[SKO]

Can you explain why it's not realistic? Or wouldn't be if Heyward had opted out, etc. What makes you think the Cubs could not afford to pay him the same mega contract Boston or New York could offer. If they can't, shouldn't we ask why?

Also I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have signed Heyward when they did. It was the right move. Heyward needed to hit though, so he could either A) Opt out or B) Be, I dunno, fuckin useful if he stayed.

Why isn't it realiistic? Harper currently makes 21 mildo/year. Put him on the open market, and you're probably looking at something close to 10/300. Which sets the market for Bryant. So the Cubs could have $600 million committed to two guys, then what happens when Rizzo comes due? You are basically looking at the Angels, who have a half billion wrapped up in Pujols and Trout.

Or you sign Harper, because he will be 25 when he hits FA (and it's probably gonna be more like 10/400) to a 10 year deal, and in the 3 years you have all three of Bryant/Rizzo/Harper together you win some rings, and then when Rizzo and Bryant hit FA, you decide if it makes sense to re-sign them both, or maybe you have someone else in the system, etc. There is no law that says they have to try and extend every one of those guys, in fact trying to do so is how you become the Phillies. The benefit of a 10 year contract for Harper is that he would only be 35 when it ended AND you'd get 3 years of playing him with Bryant and Rizzo before you even need to make that decision. Bryant won't be up for an extension until he's 29 years old, Rizzo will be in his 30s. Both of them would make a lot less sense as candidates for mega-contracts for the Cubs than Harper, sentimentality be damned. Plus, like I said, only the Harper mega-contract also buys you three years of all three of them together.

Do you honestly think that the Cubs are putting the amount of time and money into marketing Bryant and Rizzo to let either of them walk? This is still a business, and those two guys put an awful lot of butts into seats. Sure, Harper could do that as well, but it would be a pretty damn hard pivot now that Bryzzo is (are?) the face(s) of the franchise.

I think that if the best baseball move for the Cubs is to let those two walk rather than overpay them into their 40s, they will do that. Theo specifically left Boston because the business side was always thinking like that.

Also, those guys are the face of the franchise because they're really fucking good. Do you think fans are going to find Bryzzo as cute if they're both 36 and hitting like Zobrist? You can market a winning team no matter who is on it.

[Saul Goodman]

Can you explain why it's not realistic? Or wouldn't be if Heyward had opted out, etc. What makes you think the Cubs could not afford to pay him the same mega contract Boston or New York could offer. If they can't, shouldn't we ask why?

Also I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have signed Heyward when they did. It was the right move. Heyward needed to hit though, so he could either A) Opt out or B) Be, I dunno, fuckin useful if he stayed.

Why isn't it realiistic? Harper currently makes 21 mildo/year. Put him on the open market, and you're probably looking at something close to 10/300. Which sets the market for Bryant. So the Cubs could have $600 million committed to two guys, then what happens when Rizzo comes due? You are basically looking at the Angels, who have a half billion wrapped up in Pujols and Trout.

Or you sign Harper, because he will be 25 when he hits FA (and it's probably gonna be more like 10/400) to a 10 year deal, and in the 3 years you have all three of Bryant/Rizzo/Harper together you win some rings, and then when Rizzo and Bryant hit FA, you decide if it makes sense to re-sign them both, or maybe you have someone else in the system, etc. There is no law that says they have to try and extend every one of those guys, in fact trying to do so is how you become the Phillies. The benefit of a 10 year contract for Harper is that he would only be 35 when it ended AND you'd get 3 years of playing him with Bryant and Rizzo before you even need to make that decision. Bryant won't be up for an extension until he's 29 years old, Rizzo will be in his 30s. Both of them would make a lot less sense as candidates for mega-contracts for the Cubs than Harper, sentimentality be damned. Plus, like I said, only the Harper mega-contract also buys you three years of all three of them together.

Do you honestly think that the Cubs are putting the amount of time and money into marketing Bryant and Rizzo to let either of them walk? This is still a business, and those two guys put an awful lot of butts into seats. Sure, Harper could do that as well, but it would be a pretty damn hard pivot now that Bryzzo is (are?) the face(s) of the franchise.

I think that if the best baseball move for the Cubs is to let those two walk rather than overpay them into their 40s, they will do that. Theo specifically left Boston because the business side was always thinking like that.

Also, those guys are the face of the franchise because they're really fucking good. Do you think fans are going to find Bryzzo as cute if they're both 36 and hitting like Zobrist? You can market a winning team no matter who is on it.

Still laughing about the idea that marketing strategies, which can never adapt to changed personnel ever and the player personnel operation couldn't give two shits about, are driving the baseball decisions being made by THEO EPSTEIN OF ALL PEOPLE.

[Saul Goodman]

Theo: "Sorry, Jed. Pencils down. We're going to have to scuttle that Bryce Harper deal. Marketing has informed me that it Wasn't Cub enough. Call his agent and wish him the best in New York or St. Louis."

[Saul Goodman]

Theo: "Look, Clayton, we're flattered that you opted out of your Dodgers contract because you wanted to chase a World Series ring after we won the last three, but I've got a warehouse full of Jake Arrieta bobbleheads that aren't going to sell themselves. Here, let me give you Mike Rizzo's number."

[SKO]

Christ, fork has managed to ally me, Pen, and Sterling Goodman together. That's how wrong he is here.

[Quality Start Machine]

It's the same thing that THE GREAT SCOTTIE BOWMAN would never stand for in Chicago.

[Bort]

Christ, fork has managed to ally me, Pen, and Sterling Goodman together. That's how wrong he is here.

I'm just stopping in to marvel at this moment, since now I'm also in this alliance.

[SKO]

.698 OPS.

[Saul Goodman]

Christ, fork has managed to ally me, Pen, and Sterling Goodman together. That's how wrong he is here.

I'm just stopping in to marvel at this moment, since now I'm also in this alliance.

Trump's America, man.