Offseason Rumors & Transactions Thread

[Pushfrog98]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/nl-notes-reds-stanton-cubs-mets.html

Marlins GM Dan Jennings says contract extension talks with Giancarlo Stanton are ongoing, reports Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com (via Twitter). There is no time table on the talks. In Justice’s article, he mentions the Cardinals as a possible fit for Stanton is extension talks with Miami fizzle.

 

Of course this will happen.

[gscool89]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/nl-notes-reds-stanton-cubs-mets.html

Marlins GM Dan Jennings says contract extension talks with Giancarlo Stanton are ongoing, reports Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com (via Twitter). There is no time table on the talks. In Justice’s article, he mentions the Cardinals as a possible fit for Stanton is extension talks with Miami fizzle.

 

Of course this will happen.

The Cubs can beat them in any deal, if they think Giancarlo is good enough, they'll get him.

[Clem Fandango]

I know the Cardinals could conceivably put together a package to make it happen, but Taveras was their blue chip prospect to offer to the Marlins for Stanton. With Taveras tragically gone from that scenario, they'd have to give up more to account for the offset in talent a package without Taveras would include, and it may end up hurting their future more than it would if he hadn't passed away. Either they add more prospects, or add young MLB talent to make up the difference. If Taveras were still alive the package would be a lot easier to visualize. And a vast majority of the better talent they can offer, both prospects and MLB wise, is pitching, and one would assume the Marlins would primarily want some offense back if they're giving up one of the best bats in the majors with no impactful replacement for that bat in the future.

[Sammy Sofa]

This is BA on Russell's defense in their own words:

 

Russell tried bulking up in high school to become more of a power hitter, but the extra muscle did little more than relegate him to third base with Team USA. As a result, he refocused his efforts on making sure he could stay at shortstop, and few question his defensive future now. Russell has solid fundamentals and takes good angles to balls. His lower half works well, and he has the range and athleticism to make plenty of highlight-quality plays. He doesn’t have a cannon for an arm, but it’s strong enough for the position and plays up thanks to his quick transfer and accuracy.

 

If that's skepticism, I'd hate to see glowing.

 

One doesn't need to rely on gibbering morons like Arguello to find consensus on Russell's defense. And really, the argument against dealing Castro based on defense is based on all three of Russell, Baez and Alcantara being unable to play SS on the major league level. I'm no believer that there's any such thing as a can't-miss prospect, but the odds of that are pretty low.

 

That sounds like a "he can stick at SS" report, not "he's the best defensive SS in the system."

 

And yeah, Baez likely has a bit of a stronger arm, but Castro can make plays better and has better accuracy. He has the tools in his arm strength and range to be better, but he's got a lot to prove that that can actually come together, and it didn't really in the minors. Russell's the one, IMO, that has the best shot of making the case, and I just don't see the reports saying it's a slam dunk where he needs to push Castro off of SS.

[Backtobanks]

So you think there's a set number of PA's offensive prospects have to hit before the FO is willing to bring them up?

 

If I remember right, that was what the FO was saying when Baez and Soler were tearing up the minor leagues and Cub fans wanted them up immediately.

 

Soler only had 621 PA.

 

Baez had 1350.

 

This might be more relative to each player on a case-by-case basis than you're willing to admit.

 

I'm just repeating what my recollection of what Theo said. I guess he might use it as a reason to bring up a prospect when he chooses rather than what the fans want. I agree with your other post:

 

That's obviously not a hard and fast rule across the board; different prospects will merit a quicker rise to the majors than others. Bryant would have been up this year if it hadn't been a lost season. If Russell is kicking ass next year and the Cubs are in the hunt there's a VERY good chance you'll see him up regardless of what it means in terms of cost-effective years of team control.

 

Of course if the Cubs aren't doing well, it probably means Russell will be up in 2016.

[Guest]

Theo initially gave the quote that you're talking about when giving lip service to keeping Rizzo in the minors until it was advantageous financially to bring him up.

 

On the other hand, they felt it would be beneficial to give Javy exposure to major league pitching even in a losing season. They also brought up Soler at the end of the year.

 

I think it is fair to say that they have a plan for each of the major prospects that incorporates what is best for their development, financial considerations, team needs and more. Therefore it is very hard to extrapolate from how they have handled any one player to how they will handle another.

[Deeg]

Part of the consideration with Baez being called up was not having all the A-list prospects reach FA in the same year. And it's a moot point with Soler, who was already on a major-league contract. The only concerns with him were baseball (and health) ones.

[SouthSideRyan]

Soler can opt out of his contract, it was not a moot point.

[Deeg]

Soler can opt out of his contract, it was not a moot point.

 

It's as good as moot, because his opt-out is only to choose arbitration over his existing salary. He can't become a FA, and if he's performing well-enough to earn more in arbitration the Cubs would hardly bat an eye at the modest additional cost. If he's good enough to choose to opt-out, he'll be a huge bargain either way and his FA date is unaffected by his callup date.

[Guest]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

[Guest]

Joel Sherman ‏@Joelsherman1 8m8 minutes ago

#Rays are moving closer to dealing Jeremy Hellickson to an NL team. Likely this week

[Cubswin11]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

Because he does/didn't have a regular minor league deal. His call up date had/has no effect on when he hits FA.

[KingCubsFan]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

Somebody needs to go to Cubs Convention specifically to ask Jed about Soler's contract.

[Guest]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

Because he does/didn't have a regular minor league deal. His call up date had/has no effect on when he hits FA.

 

He's still subject to service time rules. Since it's a near absolute certainty he'll opt into arbitration, at that point his original contract is pretty much ripped up. I suppose it's remotely possible that somehow he can be arbitration eligible and still subject to his 10 year guarantee, but I've never heard of that happening and it's pretty illogical(arbitration by definition means you don't have a guaranteed deal).

[SouthSideRyan]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

Because he does/didn't have a regular minor league deal. His call up date had/has no effect on when he hits FA.

 

He's still subject to service time rules. Since it's a near absolute certainty he'll opt into arbitration, at that point his original contract is pretty much ripped up. I suppose it's remotely possible that somehow he can be arbitration eligible and still subject to his 10 year guarantee, but I've never heard of that happening and it's pretty illogical(arbitration by definition means you don't have a guaranteed deal).

 

It's not even that, it was a 9 year deal. There's this prevailing thought that Soler would get auto-free agency after the 2020 season no matter how much service time he'd accrued and it's never made any sense to me. Even if somehow he never opted for arbitration, if he only had 5 years, 60 days service time when his original major league contract ended, he'd go to arbitration just like anybody else would.

[jersey cubs fan]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

Because he does/didn't have a regular minor league deal. His call up date had/has no effect on when he hits FA.

 

He's still subject to service time rules. Since it's a near absolute certainty he'll opt into arbitration, at that point his original contract is pretty much ripped up. I suppose it's remotely possible that somehow he can be arbitration eligible and still subject to his 10 year guarantee, but I've never heard of that happening and it's pretty illogical(arbitration by definition means you don't have a guaranteed deal).

 

It's not even that, it was a 9 year deal. There's this prevailing thought that Soler would get auto-free agency after the 2020 season no matter how much service time he'd accrued and it's never made any sense to me. Even if somehow he never opted for arbitration, if he only had 5 years, 60 days service time when his original major league contract ended, he'd go to arbitration just like anybody else would.

I've probably asked, and gotten an answer, this question a dozen times but wasn't the "automatic" free agency assumed based on what would have to be his final potential option year? Wouldn't the inability to be sent back down result in the inevitable service time?

[SouthSideRyan]

How is his FA date unaffected by his callup date?

Because he does/didn't have a regular minor league deal. His call up date had/has no effect on when he hits FA.

 

He's still subject to service time rules. Since it's a near absolute certainty he'll opt into arbitration, at that point his original contract is pretty much ripped up. I suppose it's remotely possible that somehow he can be arbitration eligible and still subject to his 10 year guarantee, but I've never heard of that happening and it's pretty illogical(arbitration by definition means you don't have a guaranteed deal).

 

It's not even that, it was a 9 year deal. There's this prevailing thought that Soler would get auto-free agency after the 2020 season no matter how much service time he'd accrued and it's never made any sense to me. Even if somehow he never opted for arbitration, if he only had 5 years, 60 days service time when his original major league contract ended, he'd go to arbitration just like anybody else would.

I've probably asked, and gotten an answer, this question a dozen times but wasn't the "automatic" free agency assumed based on what would have to be his final potential option year? Wouldn't the inability to be sent back down result in the inevitable service time?

 

Soler gets a 4th option year.

[Fro]

This article from the Tribune from 2012 says Soler can't become a free agent until after 2020, even if he opts for arbitration instead of his salary for that year of the contract.

 

The contract includes clauses that allow Soler to opt for arbitration instead of his allotted salary during arbitration-eligible years, though he can't leave for free agency until after 2020.

[Guest]

Sources have informed FOX Sports MLB Insider Ken Rosenthal that new Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman and the L.A. brain trust are aggressively trying to move an outfielder, and that nearly all are in play.

 

 

speculate away

[Guest]

This article from the Tribune from 2012 says Soler can't become a free agent until after 2020, even if he opts for arbitration instead of his salary for that year of the contract.

 

The contract includes clauses that allow Soler to opt for arbitration instead of his allotted salary during arbitration-eligible years, though he can't leave for free agency until after 2020.

 

 

Whether or not that was true was made irrelevant by the timing of Soler's call up in 2014. If he had been put on the Bryant plan I'm relatively certain he wouldn't be a FA until after 2021.

[Guest]

Sources have informed FOX Sports MLB Insider Ken Rosenthal that new Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman and the L.A. brain trust are aggressively trying to move an outfielder, and that nearly all are in play.

 

 

speculate away

 

I off-handedly mentioned it earlier, but the more I think about it, the more curious I am how much of Crawford's contract they'd eat. It's only 3 years and he's a pretty nice fit if you believe he can be passable in CF(honestly, I kinda think he and Alcantara are comparable there).

[Cubswin11]

Sources have informed FOX Sports MLB Insider Ken Rosenthal that new Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman and the L.A. brain trust are aggressively trying to move an outfielder, and that nearly all are in play.

 

 

speculate away

I am going to assume Puig isn't in play or at least the cost may be prohibitive with Friedman there.

 

But what about Castillo and Almora for Kemp and they eat some of the salary? Kemp could play LF this year and then sign Martin. Could move Kemp to CF if/when Bryant comes up and can't play 3B and has to move to LF.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Cubswin11

[Guest]

Sources have informed FOX Sports MLB Insider Ken Rosenthal that new Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman and the L.A. brain trust are aggressively trying to move an outfielder, and that nearly all are in play.

 

 

speculate away

Castillo and Almora for Kemp and they eat some of the salary? Kemp could play LF this year and then sign Martin. Could move Kemp to CF if/when Bryant comes up and can't play 3B and has to move to LF.

 

Kemp in CF? Don't think you want to do that.

[jersey cubs fan]

Sources have informed FOX Sports MLB Insider Ken Rosenthal that new Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman and the L.A. brain trust are aggressively trying to move an outfielder, and that nearly all are in play.

 

 

speculate away

 

I off-handedly mentioned it earlier, but the more I think about it, the more curious I am how much of Crawford's contract they'd eat. It's only 3 years and he's a pretty nice fit if you believe he can be passable in CF(honestly, I kinda think he and Alcantara are comparable there).

 

Can he play CF?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

I don't think any of LA's OF can play CF.