Cubs interested in Pirates Closer Bednar

The idea that you have to wait until your team is amazing to make a big move is wrong.

The maximum point of leverage on additions is when your team is in a close playoff race. 

I think this is a good discussion, and it's been a long time since we've had one like it. Not engaging with Kyle a priori has left things dull and I'm glad the PSD folks are willing to do it 

2 hours ago, Post Count Padder said:

Sometimes I wonder if NSBB has changed too much and then I read this thread and it's like a cozy blanket. 

I really don't want this place to be yet another place overrun with prospect/rebuilding obsession. The good news is the team might be good soon, and history suggests that most people who get that way forget about it pretty quickly once the team gets good and then a few years later a new generation of fans thinks that it's all some big, grand new plan that's never been tried before.

9 minutes ago, javy knows my name said:

I think this is a good discussion, and it's been a long time since we've had one like it. Not engaging with Kyle a priori has left things dull and I'm glad the PSD folks are willing to do it 

Also, Kyle isn’t wrong. The multiple(!) strider comparisons are nuts. 

I agree with Kyle as well, insofar as there is always a subset of fans who treat baseball operations like a video game and just want to stockpile assets and always play for 3 years in the future. Someone had a funny term for them way back in the day (some play on Democrats and Republicans). 

17 minutes ago, javy knows my name said:

I think this is a good discussion, and it's been a long time since we've had one like it. Not engaging with Kyle a priori has left things dull and I'm glad the PSD folks are willing to do it 

Pedantic arguments were ~50% of PSD "discussions."

This is the first I’m hearing about this whole Carter Hawkins: ‘Pitcher Whisperer’ too. He was hired in October 2021. If we’re going to give him/the system credit for Steele, I suppose we’re just ignoring Kilian hitting a wall (he was our top pitching prospect per FG when Hawkins was hired), Wesneski’s clear back step this year, Keegan Thompson breaking entirely, etc. Or are we just churning out Strider’s now. 

20 minutes ago, Derwood said:

I agree with Kyle as well, insofar as there is always a subset of fans who treat baseball operations like a video game and just want to stockpile assets and always play for 3 years in the future. Someone had a funny term for them way back in the day (some play on Democrats and Republicans). 

On the old Chicago Tribune boards in the early Hendry era, they were known as Nowacrats vs. Buildicans.

I'm a big believer that having a quality pipeline of develped prospects is critical to long-term success. I just think the value is in the breadth and consistency of a system and in elite hitting prospects, not in every random Mash Mervis or Ben Brown that people get enamored with.

30 minutes ago, Derwood said:

I agree with Kyle as well, insofar as there is always a subset of fans who treat baseball operations like a video game and just want to stockpile assets and always play for 3 years in the future. Someone had a funny term for them way back in the day (some play on Democrats and Republicans). 

No one is doing this. No one is trying to hoard all the prospects.  There's a big difference between that and saying they shouldn't use their best assets on a reliever at this point in time.

Just now, Tryptamine said:

No one is doing this. No one is trying to hoard all the prospects.  There's a big difference between that and saying they shouldn't use their best assets on a reliever at this point in time.

It's the "at this point in time" that's tripping me up.

They're right on the tipping point between making and not making the playoffs. There's arguably never going to be a time where acquisitions have a higher leverage.

Just now, Tryptamine said:

No one is doing this. No one is trying to hoard all the prospects.  There's a big difference between that and saying they shouldn't use their best assets on a reliever at this point in time.

Yea, I’m not sure how it went from a few of us saying we wouldn’t move Horton for a RP to this notion that we aren’t willing to move anyone. I personally like the idea of adding Bednar for 3.5 years. But not for Horton. 

1 minute ago, KCCub said:

Yea, I’m not sure how it went from a few of us saying we wouldn’t move Horton for a RP to this notion that we aren’t willing to move anyone. I personally like the idea of adding Bednar for 3.5 years. But not for Horton. 

It started with someone saying they wouldn't trade anyone in our top 10 for any closer, which was absurd.

Then it got into the weeds of how good Horton is.

36 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

It's the "at this point in time" that's tripping me up.

They're right on the tipping point between making and not making the playoffs. There's arguably never going to be a time where acquisitions have a higher leverage.

If a closer was the final piece to a team who is definitely in the playoffs then you give up more, IMO. So if the Braves wanted Bednar they might be willing to overpay. Or the Cubs in 16’ when they overpaid for Chapman. Teams who “might” make the playoffs shouldn’t do it. I think that is the point regarding “not at this time”. 

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

If a closer was the final piece to a team who is definitely in the playoffs then yiu give up more, IMO. So if the Braves wanted Bednar they might be willing to overpay. Or the Cubs in 16’ when they overpaid for Chapman. Teams who “might” make the playoffs shouldn’t do it. I think that is the point regarding “not at this time”. 

That's just wrong on a game theory level.

The biggest difference in your odds of winning a World Series is in making the playoffs vs not making it.  Being a slightly better team while you're in the playoffs doesn't have as big of an impact.

It's the season-length analogy to the highest-leverage situations being tie games, not protecting leads.

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

If a closer was the final piece to a team who is definitely in the playoffs then yiu give up more, IMO. So if the Braves wanted Bednar they might be willing to overpay. Or the Cubs in 16’ when they overpaid for Chapman. Teams who “might” make the playoffs shouldn’t do it. I think that is the point regarding “not at this time”. 

The argument against that is we need to add better arms to the pen for 24 and beyond. I would hope to hell we are also competing in 24, 25, and 26, in which Bednar would be a huge help. Of course we don’t do it for a rental closer like Chapman. This is just as much about the future as it is the present. 

I know JD and several of us on this board have been advocating trading from our prospect depth for controllable assets since atleast last trade deadline. Nobody in here is trying to hoard prospects or wanting a long rebuild. So it's hillarious to see the conversation be diverted in that direction. Many of us just think there are better controllable assetts to spend top prospect currency on then a reliever. 

Throwing around prospects stupidly is idiotic, you don't gut the farm for closer. Look at the Padres, didnt work out so hot for them. 

5 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

Throwing around prospects stupidly is idiotic, you don't gut the farm for closer. Look at the Padres, didnt work out so hot for them. 

If your farm system is "gutted" by trading one or two prospects, fire the entire organization and start over.

4 minutes ago, SOFNR said:

I know JD and several of us on this board have been advocating trading from our prospect depth for controllable assetts since atleast last trade deadline. Nobody in here is trying to hoard prospects or wanting a long rebuild. So it's hillarious to see the conversation be diverted in that direction. Many of us just think there are better controllable assetts to spend top prospect currency on then a reliever. 

Setting aside that bednar is extremely controllable, there’s like 6 teams selling right now, and of those 6 teams, a couple of them are very explicitly coming out and saying that they are going to try and be contenders next year. Who are these controllable (non-reliever) assets that teams are willing to give up on?

double post 

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Setting aside that bednar is extremely controllable, there’s like 6 teams selling right now, and of those 6 teams, a couple of them are very explicitly coming out and saying that they are going to try and be contenders next year. Who are these controllable (non-reliever) assets that teams are willing to give up on?

I'm not in the room with Hoyer so I can't tell you what names are popping up. I do absolutely trust that he's not going to throw away Cade Horton to bring in a reliever.  Bedard would be a good addition at the right price. I've made that clear. I disagree with the idea that you should just toss away any prospects to slightly improve the bullpen on this team. They do have value. If they are asking for Cade Horton then you move on. You can typically improve the bullpen by adding around the margins and the Cubs have plenty of interesting bullpen arms coming through the system. Now if someone like Juan Soto becomes available, especially if they can get an extension done, I'd happily pack Horton's bags myself. Nobody is off the table for me. But I'm definitely not getting desperate and blowing up the farm just because a reliever is the only controllable asset being offered.

1 minute ago, SOFNR said:

I'm not in the room with Hoyer so I can't tell you what names are popping up. I do absolutely trust that he's not going to throw away Cade Horton to bring in a reliever.  Bedard would be a good addition at the right price. I've made that clear. I disagree with the idea that you should just toss away any prospects to slightly improve the bullpen on this team. They do have value. If they are asking for Cade Horton then you move on. You can typically improve the bullpen by adding around the margins and the Cubs have plenty of interesting bullpen arms coming through the system. Now if someone like Juan Soto becomes available, especially if they can get an extension done, I'd happily pack Horton's bags myself. Nobody is off the table for me. But I'm definitely not getting desperate, and trading away anybody they want, just because a reliever is the only controllable asset being offered.

18 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

If your farm system is "gutted" by trading one or two prospects, fire the entire organization and start over.

Yeah definitely, but when your system lacks a ton of high end guys like the Cubs, trading a few from the top absolutely guts the farm. 

13 minutes ago, SOFNR said:

I'm not in the room with Hoyer so I can't tell you what names are popping up. I do absolutely trust that he's not going to throw away Cade Horton to bring in a reliever.  Bedard would be a good addition at the right price. I've made that clear. I disagree with the idea that you should just toss away any prospects to slightly improve the bullpen on this team. They do have value. If they are asking for Cade Horton then you move on. You can typically improve the bullpen by adding around the margins and the Cubs have plenty of interesting bullpen arms coming through the system. Now if someone like Juan Soto becomes available, especially if they can get an extension done, I'd happily pack Horton's bags myself. Nobody is off the table for me. But I'm definitely not getting desperate and blowing up the farm just because a reliever is the only controllable asset being offered.

We’re like 36 hours from the trade deadline. If the names existed, we’d know about them. ‘Serviceable, controllable, major league talent on teams with no intention of competing any time soon’ is not a long list. 

1 hour ago, TomtheBombadil said:

A few questions:

- Why not a reliever?

- Are there any specific controllable players available and tied to Cubs?

- Why would a better controllable player be out of reach after a Bednar trade anyway? The Cubs have a Top 10 farm system ranked as high as 2 and 6

 

 

 

Why not a reliever?  Answer is simple; reliever's don't throw enough to impact enough games.  It's why they're so volatile.  If you throw 70IP, and 6 of them are terrible, you can really effect your own outcome, as well as the outcome on a season.  That might be 6 games you horsefeathers up.  Relievers can go in these really weird cycles where they're good for 2 and then lay eggs unlike SP's and hitters who get sample sizes so large that 6 games mean little to nothing (as they should, realistically).  Reliever's are finishing pieces, the Cubs are not a finishing piece away, IMO.  They need some real holes filled.  These types effect the margins more for teams who are looking for completing pieces (EX. 2016 Cubs) less so teams with major holes (EX. 2023 Cubs).  I wouldn't expend impact prospects for volatile relievers.  Especially as the Cubs have proven for three years, you can find interesting relievers for essentially free if you're looking hard enough. 

"Tied" to the Cubs I think is unfair.  I think there are controllable players out there.   Whether or not journalist X has a source that the Cubs are interested in them should be something we should worry about.  If the Cubs aren't interested in them, well that's damning on the front office, no?  A hitter at a position we need, or a SP, should not be out of our reach, in theory,  The system we have should be basically deep enough to buy any MLB player we want.  Should we pay what another team wants?  Debatable as well.  There's a lot of this we just can't be privy to.