One of those pesky internet rumors has Jackson's decision down to the Cubs or Rangers. Is he worth it?
Consider the source -- Jim Bowden's been wrong about so many things he's tweeted about -- but here's the latest regarding free agent starter Edwin Jackson:
Right in that tweet is a cautionary note. Four years? Bowden says the Padres wouldn't go for a four-year deal, and that implies that's what Jackson wants.
Would you sign Edwin Jackson to a four-year contract?
Jackson is good. Just good, not spectacular. He's durable -- has made at least 31 starts each of the last six years. In that time he has been exactly league-average: ERA+ of 100, ERA of 4.29. He's averaged 149 strikeouts and 72 walks in 193 innings per season, on average, since 2007.
Good, not great. Durable, a decent back-of-the-rotation starter. He made $11 million in 2012 for a playoff team; presumably, he's looking for more than that.
Would you be willing to give a guy like this a four-year, $52 million deal? Because that's probably what it would take to land him. He's only about six months older than Sanchez, which means he might still be... good, not great, at the tail end of the contract. Seems like too many years to me, especially since whatever team signs him will be his eighth team in 11 major-league seasons. What say you? You wanted baseball to talk about, here's baseball to talk about. Have at it.
All right, here's the question in the headline: Should the Cubs sign Edwin Jackson?
Yes, at any price (34 votes)
Yes, but only at the right price & years (546 votes)
No under any circumstances (102 votes)
682 total votes