Rosenthal: Cubs have checked in on Brooks Raley

15 hours ago, Bertz said:

Jed Hoyer appears intent on adding as much pitching depth to the Cubs as he possibly can. After adding Matt Festa and Colin Rea this week, Ken Rosenthal reports in The Athletic that the team has checked in with lefty reliever Brooks Raley.

Raley, 36, started his career as a Cub before spending a few years in the KBO. Since he came back stateside in 2020 he has been one of the better lefty relievers in the league. The Cubs, even after adding Caleb Thielbar, are light on left-handed relievers.

With Raley still rehabbing from surgery, he would be eligible to be put on the 60 Day injured list as soon as spring training opens. This would be a potentially savvy way for the team to stash another pitcher without eating a roster spot.

 

View full rumor

 

Boston paid liam hendriks 4 million to not pitch in 24. And they're on the hook for 6 million to possibly not pitch in 25?

Yep, gimme some of that to backfill a staff. Keep dealing Jeb for that there savyness. Focking moron 

19 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

Boston paid liam hendriks 4 million to not pitch in 24. And they're on the hook for 6 million to possibly not pitch in 25?

Yep, gimme some of that to backfill a staff. Keep dealing Jeb for that there savyness. Focking moron 

Citation needed

Enough with injured, marginal pitchers. Give Tucker what he is asking for in Arbitration. The difference is slight. It was beyond ignorant to sign him for a 1 yr. rental to preserve Hoyer's job. You ask the team you are trading with for permission to talk to your new acquisition before you take him in trade. If he says no to an extension, it should be a hard pass.

10 minutes ago, Victor Reichman said:

Enough with injured, marginal pitchers. Give Tucker what he is asking for in Arbitration. The difference is slight. It was beyond ignorant to sign him for a 1 yr. rental to preserve Hoyer's job. You ask the team you are trading with for permission to talk to your new acquisition before you take him in trade. If he says no to an extension, it should be a hard pass.

Extensions of that magnitude rately if ever happen. Two sides coming together on an 11 year, $400m contract in 48 hours is not realistic. Neither Betts nor Lindor extended beforehand. And while Matt Olsen did with Atlanta, he was born and raised in the city - he had a good idea he wanted to be there. Kyle Tucker has never lived in Chicago and has no rush to make that determination now. We need to get away from this idea that extending Tucker at the time of the trade was feasible. It wasnt. It's not a thing, we gotta let it go. 

I, too, wish he'd had agreed pre-arb if just for optics. Ultimately, an extension remains just as likely as before - whatever % you gave it a week ago, it's not different now. 

16 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Extensions of that magnitude rately if ever happen. Two sides coming together on an 11 year, $400m contract in 48 hours is not realistic. Neither Betts nor Lindor extended beforehand. And while Matt Olsen did with Atlanta, he was born and raised in the city - he had a good idea he wanted to be there. Kyle Tucker has never lived in Chicago and has no rush to make that determination now. We need to get away from this idea that extending Tucker at the time of the trade was feasible. It wasnt. It's not a thing, we gotta let it go. 

I, too, wish he'd had agreed pre-arb if just for optics. Ultimately, an extension remains just as likely as before - whatever % you gave it a week ago, it's not different now. 

If they had no intentions of extending Tucker nor using the remaining money to build around Tucker with premium talent in 2025 then let's call it what it is, a horrific mistake. Giving up years of control with Paredes and a guy with immense offensive upside for a season in which, yet again, they're trying to sneak into the playoffs is nothing short of stupid. 

1 minute ago, Tryptamine said:

If they had no intentions of extending Tucker nor using the remaining money to build around Tucker with premium talent in 2025 then let's call it what it is, a horrific mistake. Giving up years of control with Paredes and a guy with immense offensive upside for a season in which, yet again, they're trying to sneak into the playoffs is nothing short of stupid. 

Id reccomend going to read the quotes Jed Hoyer gave when speaking on why they did not pursuit Juan Soto. There was the quote that everyone latched on to (about making an internal choice that Soto was not going to be pursued), but within there, Jed Hoyer spoke about how these kinds of contracts take a long time to work through and it takes time. That the Cubs would be willing to go big for the right players. One day later the Cubs were considered a front runner to trade for Tucker. Three days later they landed Tucker in a trade.

You can look at those quotes in a vacuum or you can apply them to the Tucker trade.  I dont think it's a coincidence that the Cubs didn't pursuit Soto, but Hoyer traded for Tucker very shortly after those quotes. 

The Cubs have not extended Tucker today but their *intentions* are entirely unknown. It seems best to refrain from deciding what their intentions are simply because it hasn't happened yet. Hoyer let us know these things take a lot of time. 

The easy defense is "well they havent signed a big contract like that ever!" And, sure, not wrong. But the contact he gets will likely be around the 5-7th biggest ever, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy for almost every team. 

I am going to let this play out before I throw a fit about signing or not signing Tucker. It would be a mistake to not earnestly try, I agree. But they have 10 months to engage there. It's going to be a long ride.

No "Brooks was here" jokes? 😕 

-----

Seriously, why not take a look to see if Raley can be option later in the season.

9 hours ago, Victor Reichman said:

Enough with injured, marginal pitchers. Give Tucker what he is asking for in Arbitration. The difference is slight. It was beyond ignorant to sign him for a 1 yr. rental to preserve Hoyer's job. You ask the team you are trading with for permission to talk to your new acquisition before you take him in trade. If he says no to an extension, it should be a hard pass.

For Cam Smith, yes.