Cubs Telling Potential Trade Partners They're Undecided On Selling At Deadline

They had similar, if not the same, needs last off-season. Jed didn't fix it then and I have no reason to believe that he is capable.

I'm sure that they would love to win during negotiations with Comcast but that isn't going to happen. If they didn't want a winning team to show off for negotiations, I doubt that they would field a winning team for any reason other than dumb luck. They didn't fix anything even with that over their heads.

The stands are full. Cup snek will manifest. People frequent the Ricketts neighborhood businesses regardless. They don't care. They're very lucky that their competition for market share at this time of year is the White Sox. They're still making money on what Harry Caray was selling. They'll continue to pick up guys from the scrap heap and try to flip them at the deadline because they see themselves as the smartest people in the room. 

2 hours ago, Rob said:

I had a similar longshot hot take about Julio Rodriguez with the Mariners. The power has evaporated this year but he's otherwise a very similar player to what he's done previously. Went from two seasons of 5.7 and 5.6 fWAR down to 0.9 fWAR this season. He's two years into a 12 year, $209 million contract. They need a guy like Hoerner and we can send Bellinger too so they don't lose CF production right now. More pieces would need to be involved, obviously. But I wonder if it's feasible.

its not

2 hours ago, chibears55 said:

In regards to the DH, I guess yes, with the OFers they have in system,  they can stay within for DH.

I'd like to see them get another sure TOR guy to go with Imanaga and Steele, they could use one or two of their younger arms in a trade for one that could become available. 

Me, im not a fan of using a rookie/unseasoned guy to close out games, I like to have a somewhat veteran for that spot and use the young arms as 7th inning/setup guys for a couple seasons first.

I like having a reliable veteran or two on the bench, someone like Zobrist, where you can plug him into the lineup anytime and produce or come off the bench in a pinch.

I know the bench isn't relied upon as much as before but I would like them to have one guy they can count on and not just a hope or luck into one.

I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying you want. I completely understand. But the Cubs aren’t spending $15M for a “bench guy” guy like Zobrist. No team is doing that. Be happy they have Tauchman. In a world of baseball today, he is a solid bench player. They also are not spending on a closer. It has been proven year in and year out that they won’t do that. Maybe the best you will see is a Jansen trade with the Red Sox to have him for one year. And I doubt they do that. That is why I am focusing on catcher and 3rd base mainly. And if Bellinger is gone, (and I hope he is) DH. Add a reliable veteran pen arm and IF they do want to package some young talent with one of those young talents being Brown, Assad or Wicks, sure they can try for a solid TOR starter. 

10 hours ago, mul21 said:

These are Amaya's projections from before the season with his actual numbers at the bottom.  He's at minimum a half win worse than the worst projection out there and a full win worse than the best.  By the end of the season, that's 1 to 2 WAR worse than projections.  I'm not sure how you can blame Jed for a guy just completely falling on his face when there were zero indications it would happen.  In addition to that, while the pen has been an absolute mess, the injuries to essentially your top 3 pen arms have to be taken into consideration.  Jed doesn't get a complete pass from me, but there's a whole lot that's happened this season that even the Carnac the Magnificent couldn't have seen coming.

Some things are Jed's fault, but I agree some things aren't.   No FO exec has a crystal ball to predict every unpredictable bad season. from his players  Sometimes stuff just happens.  Run this season back 10 times and we'd get 10 different results.

10 hours ago, CubinNY said:

I know what some other people wrote above. But the Cubs are not a catcher and bullpen away from having a good team. If the goal is to be in the hunt for the playoffs, the goal is too low. They have a 200M dollar payroll and a bad team. Jed bet 100M dollars that his shortstop would win games with his glove and leadership skills. They are a team filled with complementary players which is great if you have a star or two. They do not and it's by design. 

Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Jeter, Paul O'Neil, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch,  etc

Who was the star slugger in the middle of that lineup?

End of the day the team totals are the only thing that matter.   How you skin the cat can vary.  A team filled with good hitters with a lack of glaring holes can still win.

2 hours ago, Stratos said:

Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Jeter, Paul O'Neil, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch,  etc

Who was the star slugger in the middle of that lineup?

End of the day the team totals are the only thing that matter.   How you skin the cat can vary.  A team filled with good hitters with a lack of glaring holes can still win.

So we just need to fill the lineup with .300 hitters that also slug? That shouldnt be too hard. We already have 0, so we just need to replace everyone.

10 hours ago, Stratos said:

Some things are Jed's fault, but I agree some things aren't.   No FO exec has a crystal ball to predict every unpredictable bad season. from his players  Sometimes stuff just happens.  Run this season back 10 times and we'd get 10 different results.

This is the darkest timeline.

11 hours ago, Stratos said:

Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Jeter, Paul O'Neil, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch,  etc

Who was the star slugger in the middle of that lineup?

End of the day the team totals are the only thing that matter.   How you skin the cat can vary.  A team filled with good hitters with a lack of glaring holes can still win.

lol

The 1998 Yankees had a TEAM OPS of .825

2024 Cubs have one player above .800 and a team OPS of .678

Hey, all we need is Mariano Riveria and one of the best three year teams in the last 50 years. Get to work, Jed. 

It's easy to be great when Paul O'Neill is hitting 2 home runs on demand, even if one is scored a triple with an error.

4 minutes ago, Ding Dong Johnson said:

It's easy to be great when Paul O'Neill is hitting 2 home runs on demand, even if one is scored a triple with an error.

But he still got the framed autographed card back!!

10 minutes ago, Ding Dong Johnson said:

It's easy to be great when Paul O'Neill is hitting 2 home runs on demand, even if one is scored a triple with an error.

I go back and forth on whether my favorite baseball stuff on Seinfeld is this or George taking BP with Jeter and Bernie and being shockingly prescient about launch angle.

1 minute ago, TomtheBombadil said:

The average MLB offense in 1998 put up .271/.340/.432 (.772 OPS). Deeeeg

2024? .242/.312/.395 (.707 OPS)

So, in defense of the 2024 Cubs, putting up an .800 OPS now is way way way way way way way way way way way way more impressive. The 1998 Yankees also didn’t have to worry about seeing 40 pitchers a game as like a standard league practice 

For all the problems MLB has attempted to address, this one would seem to be the biggest, most complicated, and most significant threat to the future of the game.  Offense being terrible and continuing to trend downward is going to eventually affect the bottom line.  Clearly banning the shift wasn't the answer, so what other levers can they possibly pull?  There is the oft-mentioned but never seriously considered lowering of the mound, but I'm not sure how much that actually accomplishes.  Other than that, I have no idea.

3 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

For all the problems MLB has attempted to address, this one would seem to be the biggest, most complicated, and most significant threat to the future of the game.  Offense being terrible and continuing to trend downward is going to eventually affect the bottom line.  Clearly banning the shift wasn't the answer, so what other levers can they possibly pull?  There is the oft-mentioned but never seriously considered lowering of the mound, but I'm not sure how much that actually accomplishes.  Other than that, I have no idea.

Keep the ball dead and move the mound back.  Greater distance to the plate means more reaction/recognition time and lessens the impact of ever-increasing velocity.  Then you make sure the ball isn't too lively so you don't go too far the other way and get blurnsball with 15 HR a game.

11 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

For all the problems MLB has attempted to address, this one would seem to be the biggest, most complicated, and most significant threat to the future of the game.  Offense being terrible and continuing to trend downward is going to eventually affect the bottom line.  Clearly banning the shift wasn't the answer, so what other levers can they possibly pull?  There is the oft-mentioned but never seriously considered lowering of the mound, but I'm not sure how much that actually accomplishes.  Other than that, I have no idea.

I actually saw a really good point on this recently.  Hitters are adapting to velocity. not quite as fast as it's improving but they're adapting.  At the same time we appear to be nearing a biological ceiling on pitcher velo and spin.  There's a decent chance in 5 years we're having the opposite conversation, talking about how to help pitchers and wondering if we need to e.g. bring back sticky stuff.

11 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I actually saw a really good point on this recently.  Hitters are adapting to velocity. not quite as fast as it's improving but they're adapting.  At the same time we appear to be nearing a biological ceiling on pitcher velo and spin.  There's a decent chance in 5 years we're having the opposite conversation, talking about how to help pitchers and wondering if we need to e.g. bring back sticky stuff.

 It might seem counterintuitive, but one of the best things they can do is get rid of the home plate umpire for calling balls and strikes. Once hitters adjust to a true zone, they will learn to leave some of the stuff alone. It will also force pitchers to come into the zone in critical counts. 

14 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

 It might seem counterintuitive, but one of the best things they can do is get rid of the home plate umpire for calling balls and strikes. Once hitters adjust to a true zone, they will learn to leave some of the stuff alone. It will also force pitchers to come into the zone in critical counts. 

Not sure if that helps or hurts offense, but I am all for getting rid of the home plate umpire. If I had to guess, I would agree with you on eventual results. But doesn’t matter, they have to go! 

12 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

 It might seem counterintuitive, but one of the best things they can do is get rid of the home plate umpire for calling balls and strikes. Once hitters adjust to a true zone, they will learn to leave some of the stuff alone. It will also force pitchers to come into the zone in critical counts. 

Don't think the umpires are going to agree to do that. They have their own union as well. I watched a AAA game last week in person with the challenge system. First time going to a minor league game with a challenge system, and I enjoyed it. Should only take around 5-7 seconds max. 

Don't see umpires wanting to "suit up" and sit behind home plate for 2.5 hours with an object coming at them 95+ MPH with movement, and not being able to do what they enjoy doing, which is calling balls and strikes. I do believe they're willing to move to the challenge system.

When it comes to the players, I don't think hitters will appreciate the catcher setting up inside, reaching out over the outter edge of the plate, and be rewarded with a strike out based on "computers" despite clearly missing his spot.

Organizations will still have to instruct proper framing when it comes to the catchers. You move to the robotic system, that's all gone. With the challenge system, that art is still there.

6 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Don't think the umpires are going to agree to do that. They have their own union as well. I watched a AAA game last week in person with the challenge system. First time going to a minor league game with a challenge system, and I enjoyed it. Should only take around 5-7 seconds max. 

Don't see umpires wanting to "suit up" and sit behind home plate for 2.5 hours with an object coming at them 95+ MPH with movement, and not being able to do what they enjoy doing, which is calling balls and strikes. I do believe they're willing to move to the challenge system.

When it comes to the players, I don't think hitters will appreciate the catcher setting up inside, reaching out over the outter edge of the plate, and be rewarded with a strike out based on "computers" despite clearly missing his spot.

Organizations will still have to instruct proper framing when it comes to the catchers. You move to the robotic system, that's all gone. With the challenge system, that art is still there.

what?

18 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

 It might seem counterintuitive, but one of the best things they can do is get rid of the home plate umpire for calling balls and strikes. Once hitters adjust to a true zone, they will learn to leave some of the stuff alone. It will also force pitchers to come into the zone in critical counts. 

I like this. Hitters are always taught that if the ball is close with 2 strikes, you have to swing at it to take it out of the umpire's hands. Guys that really know the strike zone wouldn't have to do this anymore.

I know that Suzuki's numbers would look a lot better with automated balls and strikes. I've never seen a Cubs player have so many borderline pitches go against him. 

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

you have no idea what you are talking about. 

mmmhmmm sureeeeee!!!

1 minute ago, 731.4life said:

mmmhmmm sureeeeee!!!

Baseball isn't art. It's a sport with rules. 

Just now, CubinNY said:

Baseball isn't art. It's a sport with rules. 

Umpires association aren't going to give up that much control. MLB has to go to them and see what they want. Manfred and his team can't just say "screw the umpires" over the offseason.

Robotic system isn't coming to the MLB, at least anytime soon. Accept that.

2 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Umpires association aren't going to give up that much control. MLB has to go to them and see what they want. Manfred and his team can't just say "screw the umpires" over the offseason.

Robotic system isn't coming to the MLB, at least anytime soon. Accept that.

The umpires have no say in the rules that baseball decides on. They interpret the rules. They take their orders from MLB. So, the decision will be made by the owners and the players.