This guy was so horrible in the postseason a few years ago....I don't understand how he gets any deal for more than a couple years...

...maybe he's been hired to pitch BP?

What difference does it make how much he is going to get paid at the end of the contract? He more than likely is not going to be around then. He will be flipped at some point for a couple prospects. He will give the Cubs an innings eater for a couple years and then be gone. Nothing really to be upset about.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

I think the point is it will be easier to move him and/or you'll get a better deal if he isn't making as much money at the end of the deal, no?

yeah but it isn't like he is going to be making outragesou money on the back end. I would imagine that 14 mil per year in a couple years will be fairly appealing to teams. And there always seems to be teams interested in him.

I don't know, just seems like in the big picture this signing is not something to really be excited about or be upset about.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Well I guess there always is Boston.

The bottom line is the Cubs are going to have to overpay because they sucked so bad last year so obviously they now have lots of depth in the pitching staff, albeit without any elite guys.

It's amazing the price nowadays for guys who throw 200+ innings of 4.00 ERA ball.

IMO the season ticket renewals had to be running way behind previous years so maybe that altered their thinking for 2014.

If the Cubs are paying part/all of that. If he was that good, he'd have stuck in one place. Whats this going to be, his 6th team?

_________________

Ding ding ding

_________________

So its being reported that it is official. Also being reported.... a no trade clause!

Oh shut the front door...

Yeah...not so much from what I'm reading...

The Chicago Cubs have come to an agreement on a four-year, $52 million contract with free agent starting pitcher Edwin Jackson, reports Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com. The deal does not include a no-trade clause.

My bad. MLBtraderumors has it wrong.

The Cubs have agreed to sign Edwin Jackson to a four-year, $52MM contract, Patrick Mooney of CSNChicago.com reports (on Twitter). The deal includes a no-trade clause, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports (on Twitter). The agreement between the Cubs and the Legacy Sports Group client is pending a physical.
Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#kxZhdPvsJfrJYYPU.99

This is the most mediocre fucking signing "watch" I've ever witnessed. Jeez, it's Edwin fucking Jackson. They're reporting this like you're signing Verlander or some shit. The hell?

_________________
Kid Cairo's Boers & Bernstein YouTube Channel

Kid Cairo: 2013 March Madness Tournament Winner!

"Cowabunga? Cowa fucking piece of dog shit! This game is diarrhea coming out of my dick!"

Hey it's better than the immortal Chris Volstad or Casey Coleman!

IF he is signed to a no trade clause,the team should demand a buyout clause in case he sucks to high heaven. It's only fair.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

Is the default position of Cubs fans for every player "they will be able to trade him for..."?

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

At this point? Pretty much.

I don't think they will be able to trade this guy, though.

They gave away Paul Maholm for I don't remember what. That move is costing them about 40-50 million this year.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

They got one of the Braves top pitching prospects.

Wonder what they will get when they trade him?

Nah, he will be forever injured.

I mean who really cares about Edwin Jackson one way or the other. It's a mediocre player making mediocre money for what starting pitchers are going for these days. Yawn.

_________________

Ok,I forgot but it is true. Maholm was signed for 2013. Maybe they don't chase Edwin Jackson if they have him to pick up 150 IP.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

So the Cubs shouldn't trade their pitchers for prospects? I am so confused by what my fellow Cubs fans want. We are all over the place this offseason from a fan reaction standpoint.

_________________

I liked Maholm. He was doing very well,too. He filled a void that is now being filled again for millions more.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

I'll fill a void for a few hundies...

...what?

But the Cubs are well below the luxury tax cap and will control Jackson past this current season. Even if they re-upped Maholm it would only have been for one more year then they would have negotiated with him again and he will end up making the same type of money Jackson is going to make. And on top of it we got one of the Braves best pitching prospects for Maholm. I mean Maholm over Jackson is not going to make a difference next year one way or the other. And now it allows the Cubs to have control over a pitcher for the next 4 years at a time when salaries are only going to be escalating. Like I have said I am not in love with the move but I don't think that it flies in the face of the rebuilding plan or anything. It's just a move for a pitcher who will fill some innings while the Cubs try to get competitive again.

_________________

Good argument. I see your point. I guess that's why I'm not a GM. I would have a bunch of old guys anyway.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

Bring back Jody Davis!

_________________

_________________