2013 Mock Offseason Thread

[Guest]

How about Dan Haren, looks like Angels won't pick up his option, or will pick it up and trade him. He seems like a great gamble to hopefully regain value and then trade.

Yeah, I've thrown my vote in for picking up Haren if the Angels part ways. On the down side, he lost significant velocity this year after piling up innings in previous years. However, sometimes guys bounce back from that after a lighter year like Haren just pitched. Also, other than an abnormal HR/FB rate (partially justified by the downtick in velocity, of course) his peripherals were still pretty strong last year despite the awful ERA.

 

If we can get him without giving up an arm and a leg, he'd be a great gamble.

[davell]

Haren had been worth 36 WAR over the 7 seasons prior to 2012. Will his velo return? No idea. But for a rebuilding team with tons of payroll flexibility, it's the perfect one year risk to see if it does, as long as the price isn't high. My guess is it'd take a couple of backend top 30 types from our system. Just not that many teams that can give him 15 mill in 2013. And I doubt they'd trade him to the Dodgers. On the other hand, if he hits the open market, plenty of contenders would come calling, probably winding up going multiple years on him, just to get him there. I really hope we take this chance. One year commitment, likely minimal risk, and possible huge upside.

[Rob]

I don't know that I really want the Cubs to acquire a Dan Haren or Josh Johnson type. Yeah, we have money to burn... but the best case scenario for something like this ends up with us picking up most of their contracts and getting maaaaybe a B+ level prospect and a couple interesting C+ guys. I have to wonder if there aren't better uses for that sort of investment. I'm sure $10 mil spread around could make a real dent in the cost of buying the sort of tech necessary to say - monitor pitchers mechanics and arm strength over the course of the season. Or spending it on upgrading minor league facilities. Or maybe hire a team of nutritionists to follow Vogelbach around all offseason or something.

[Guest]

I don't know that I really want the Cubs to acquire a Dan Haren or Josh Johnson type. Yeah, we have money to burn... but the best case scenario for something like this ends up with us picking up most of their contracts and getting maaaaybe a B+ level prospect and a couple interesting C+ guys. I have to wonder if there aren't better uses for that sort of investment. I'm sure $10 mil spread around could make a real dent in the cost of buying the sort of tech necessary to say - monitor pitchers mechanics and arm strength over the course of the season. Or spending it on upgrading minor league facilities. Or maybe hire a team of nutritionists to follow Vogelbach around all offseason or something.

The team could have around $50M to spend this offseason and stay at a consistent baseball budget. Take $10M off that for Vogelbach's veggie diet and whatever Baez wants and we've still got a lot free to invest in upgrading the rotation.

[CUBZ99]

I don't know that I really want the Cubs to acquire a Dan Haren or Josh Johnson type. Yeah, we have money to burn... but the best case scenario for something like this ends up with us picking up most of their contracts and getting maaaaybe a B+ level prospect and a couple interesting C+ guys. I have to wonder if there aren't better uses for that sort of investment. I'm sure $10 mil spread around could make a real dent in the cost of buying the sort of tech necessary to say - monitor pitchers mechanics and arm strength over the course of the season. Or spending it on upgrading minor league facilities. Or maybe hire a team of nutritionists to follow Vogelbach around all offseason or something.

The team could have around $50M to spend this offseason and stay at a consistent baseball budget. Take $10M off that for Vogelbach's veggie diet and whatever Baez wants and we've still got a lot free to invest in upgrading the rotation.

 

Yes, and a Haren type investment would seem like the low risk/high reward type chances this front office would take.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If cash is the main return for the Angels, why not? I'll take both Haren and Santana for the right price. If our offseason is going to consist primarily of reclamations, may as well aim high. If they'll take cash and scraps, go for it.

 

Garza/Shark/Haren/Wood/Santana could end up quite a formidable rotation. If not, it all comes off the books after 2013. Even if Haren or Santana end up a solid 3-4 starter and we tank again, they could net us a quality prospect or two in the summer.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Our two open rotation slots are far too valuable to be wasting on a nothing like Santana. Haren, I'm not a huge fan of, but you could make a case.

[davell]

Last year, we wanted depth. Go 9 deep as far as the rotation went. I doubt that changes. Especially given Garza's current status and the fact they've never made it clear Wood is a lock. I figure we'll go into the year with 6 legit SP, with a guy on the DL or a guy(Wood possibly) starting out as a long guy out of the pen.

[WrigleyField 22]

Will Wood have a final option year next year? I'm fine with him as the 5th starter, but if you can find enough room for 6 starters I think you can even keep him in Iowa. Injuries will happen so he'd still get plenty of big league innings over the course of a season.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Little Slide Rooter]

Our two open rotation slots are far too valuable to be wasting on a nothing like Santana. Haren, I'm not a huge fan of, but you could make a case.

 

If we could fill it with someone like Price or Bauer, that would be great. The FA options will likely be overpriced due to the market, so if it came down to it, would would rather fill that 5th spot with Santana or something along the lines of Socolovich or Germano?

[davell]

Dave Cameron wrote an interesting piece today on the possibility of NBA-style, sign and trades, in MLB. He gave an example of this: Astros make a prearranged 1-8 deal with Marcum, have him agree to waive his immediate trade rights for an extra 500k. Then pick up his salary and immediately trade him to the Royals for prospects. With the excess money we have, if this kind of opportunity comes up with a small market team, I hope we jump all over it. Pretty creative way to still "buy" prospects, while not breaking draft budget or IFA rules.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dave Cameron wrote an interesting piece today on the possibility of NBA-style, sign and trades, in MLB. He gave an example of this: Astros make a prearranged 1-8 deal with Marcum, have him agree to waive his immediate trade rights for an extra 500k. Then pick up his salary and immediately trade him to the Royals for prospects. With the excess money we have, if this kind of opportunity comes up with a small market team, I hope we jump all over it. Pretty creative way to still "buy" prospects, while not breaking draft budget or IFA rules.

 

Best Interest of Baseball Clause would come flying.

[Clem Fandango]

Dave Cameron wrote an interesting piece today on the possibility of NBA-style, sign and trades, in MLB. He gave an example of this: Astros make a prearranged 1-8 deal with Marcum, have him agree to waive his immediate trade rights for an extra 500k. Then pick up his salary and immediately trade him to the Royals for prospects. With the excess money we have, if this kind of opportunity comes up with a small market team, I hope we jump all over it. Pretty creative way to still "buy" prospects, while not breaking draft budget or IFA rules.

 

Wouldn't that be a strict violation of the CBA?

[davell]

It's not in any violation. SSR brings up a good point though. That COULD happen: But would Selig do that? If a small market team wants to contend and gets creative, it shouldn't be his call to not allow it. No clue what he'd do here.

[Clem Fandango]

I don't see a player giving up their ability to control who they decide to play for based on who is interested in signing them. If a guy like Marcum has X amount of teams interested in signing him, and is only willing to play for Y amount of teams, I don't see why he would sign a deal that would allow him to be traded to a team that isn't X or Y. I guess it comes down to whether or not the player is willing to play anywhere for more money. I can't imagine they'd sign a similar deal only to allow themselves to be traded immediately. If Marcum would want to play for the Royals, and the Royals want Marcum, why wouldn't the Royals just sign Marcum and keep their prospects?

[Guest]

Dave Cameron wrote an interesting piece today on the possibility of NBA-style, sign and trades, in MLB. He gave an example of this: Astros make a prearranged 1-8 deal with Marcum, have him agree to waive his immediate trade rights for an extra 500k. Then pick up his salary and immediately trade him to the Royals for prospects. With the excess money we have, if this kind of opportunity comes up with a small market team, I hope we jump all over it. Pretty creative way to still "buy" prospects, while not breaking draft budget or IFA rules.

 

I think there's probably a reason that we haven't had a free agent waive his immediate trade rights for extra cash. Namely, that the free agent then knows that someone out there values him at a certain price, so he won't have to make himself an indentured servant to get that money.

[davell]

Well, I figure it'd be a working trade from the outset. Meaning in this scenario, Marcum would know beforehand, that he's going to the Royals, juat that the Astros would be getting prospects for him and paying his salary.

[davell]

Peavy just got 2/29 to stay with the White Sox, with an option based on IP. One less guy on the market. I bet Haren gets dealt now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That's a great indication of how expensive pitching is going to be.

[davell]

That's a great indication of how expensive pitching is going to be.

Did you think that was bad? I honestly thought he'd get 3 and an option on the open market. The AAV sounds about right to me.

[Guest]

peavy was dominant this year and he's "only" 31. that contract looks about right. i'd have probably guessed he'd get 3/40 or something like that.

[treebird]

can you even waive your immediate trade rights? i thought those were more of an mlb rule than a protection built into player contracts.

 

also, i suspect it would cost a lot more than 500k to talk a player into giving up what, in many cases, will be his first ever chance to choose where he plays.

[davell]

can you even waive your immediate trade rights? i thought those were more of an mlb rule than a protection built into player contracts.

 

also, i suspect it would cost a lot more than 500k to talk a player into giving up what, in many cases, will be his first ever chance to choose where he plays.

Evidently you can waive them. But it'd be a thing where the player knows where he's going to be playing from the get-go. They just get their money from a different team. I guess you'd kind of have to recruit a small market team early in the offseason and come up with some parameters up front. "We'll send you 10 mill for whatever and you give us this prospect". Then let that team make it work from there. But the player knows up front that this is how it's going to go down.

[Clem Fandango]

Brandon League just resigned with the Dodgers. Was hoping he would be a reliever looked at to help the Cubs bullpen woes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

can you even waive your immediate trade rights? i thought those were more of an mlb rule than a protection built into player contracts.

 

also, i suspect it would cost a lot more than 500k to talk a player into giving up what, in many cases, will be his first ever chance to choose where he plays.

Evidently you can waive them. But it'd be a thing where the player knows where he's going to be playing from the get-go. They just get their money from a different team. I guess you'd kind of have to recruit a small market team early in the offseason and come up with some parameters up front. "We'll send you 10 mill for whatever and you give us this prospect". Then let that team make it work from there. But the player knows up front that this is how it's going to go down.

 

So why not just pay for the prospect and let them sign the player?