Offseason Rumors & Transactions Thread

[mul21]

If he turns it down, we're no worse off than we are now.

 

I like how you say this like sometimes there are repercussions if a player turns down an offer.

 

Well, there can be if you really lowball a guy.

[Sammy Sofa]

Which is a thing that happens.

[Guest]

Which is a thing that happens.

Boston. Lester.

[squally1313]

Theo has a macro set up in his Outlook that sends the Angels an EJax for Trout offer every half hour. "Can't hurt"

[Sammy Sofa]

Which is a thing that happens.

Boston. Lester.

 

Teams shove off from their own players all the time with those kind of shitty offers; we're talking about going after a FA like Price.

 

Now dance for me.

[Backtobanks]

Offer him 18/20/22 with a $22 mutual million option and see what happens.

Laughter happens.

 

He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed.

 

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have his perfect offer from a team he wants to play for or else he would be signed by now. I agree that the overwhelming majority of players take the highest bid, but sometimes a player will leave money on the table for other reasons (location, AL/NL, losing team/contending team, etc.) A serious discussion with the FO explaining the likelihood of agreeing to the option because of increased revenue in the next few years might convince him that a 4 year/$82 million contract on a contending team is the best way to go.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Offer him 18/20/22 with a $22 mutual million option and see what happens.

Laughter happens.

 

He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed.

 

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have his perfect offer from a team he wants to play for or else he would be signed by now. I agree that the overwhelming majority of players take the highest bid, but sometimes a player will leave money on the table for other reasons (location, AL/NL, losing team/contending team, etc.) A serious discussion with the FO explaining the likelihood of agreeing to the option because of increased revenue in the next few years might convince him that a 4 year/$82 million contract on a contending team is the best way to go.

 

Now that the Cubs have shown they are willing to give out a big contract, I'd rather they wait until next offseason and go after a bunch of other pitchers who, while more expensive, I feel will also be much better. We lock into Shields at $20 per for three seasons after this, and I have my doubts that they will be willing to have three starters making $20 million or more in their rotation for multiple years.

 

I understand that not all the top free agents will be available by next offseason, but I feel there will be enough that it's best to wait.

[Backtobanks]

Offer him 18/20/22 with a $22 mutual million option and see what happens.

Laughter happens.

 

He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed.

 

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have his perfect offer from a team he wants to play for or else he would be signed by now. I agree that the overwhelming majority of players take the highest bid, but sometimes a player will leave money on the table for other reasons (location, AL/NL, losing team/contending team, etc.) A serious discussion with the FO explaining the likelihood of agreeing to the option because of increased revenue in the next few years might convince him that a 4 year/$82 million contract on a contending team is the best way to go.

 

Now that the Cubs have shown they are willing to give out a big contract, I'd rather they wait until next offseason and go after a bunch of other pitchers who, while more expensive, I feel will also be much better. We lock into Shields at $20 per for three seasons after this, and I have my doubts that they will be willing to have three starters making $20 million or more in their rotation for multiple years.

 

I understand that not all the top free agents will be available by next offseason, but I feel there will be enough that it's best to wait.

 

I think it's worth a shot if Shields makes us a playoff team this year. Signing one good pitcher next year would give us a rotation of 4 very good/excellent starters for at least 2016 -2018.

[davell]

I'd just as soon hold off on Shields now. If we ARE contending, we can add mid season, if necessary. If we're not, or if we are and address other needs at the deadline, we can get a guy next offseason. Some of them will be available for sure anyway.

 

Only way I go after Shields is if he'd sign a 1-2 year deal(very,very doubtful in my opinion) or if the FO knows they can sign him AND it doesn't change the fact we'd still have room to grab another one next offseason too.(I'd be shocked if we had the capability to add Shields + Zimmermann/Price/whoever.)

[Backtobanks]

I'd just as soon hold off on Shields now. If we ARE contending, we can add mid season, if necessary. If we're not, or if we are and address other needs at the deadline, we can get a guy next offseason. Some of them will be available for sure anyway.

 

Only way I go after Shields is if he'd sign a 1-2 year deal(very,very doubtful in my opinion) or if the FO knows they can sign him AND it doesn't change the fact we'd still have room to grab another one next offseason too.(I'd be shocked if we had the capability to add Shields + Zimmermann/Price/whoever.)

 

Maybe not one of Zimmermann/Price/Cuerto, but someone like Anderson/Porcello/Fister would give us a rotation of Lester, Shields, Arrieta, Hammel, Anderson/Porcello/Fister, and Hendricks as depth for 2016 - 2018. Next off season you know that some of the "big spenders" (Red Sox, Nationals, Yankees, etc.) will have money to spend and will be more than willing to spend it.

[Guest]

The odds that I would prefer Hendricks to Shields starting in 2016 are not low, they might be greater than 50% depending on the day since Shields is a conflicting player for me.

[Guest]

The odds that I would prefer Hendricks to Shields starting in 2016 are not low, they might be greater than 50% depending on the day since Shields is a conflicting player for me.

Yeah, but Hendricks is a conflicting player for me, too.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not sure we should be looking at free agency for our second TORP. You are basically locking yourself in to having two post-prime guys for those spots from 2016-2020 or whenever, and those are supposed to be your golden years.

 

Back up the truck on your ridiculous stable of prospects and find someone ace-y at 25-28 in a trade.

[Guest]

I'd just as soon hold off on Shields now. If we ARE contending, we can add mid season, if necessary. If we're not, or if we are and address other needs at the deadline, we can get a guy next offseason. Some of them will be available for sure anyway.

 

Only way I go after Shields is if he'd sign a 1-2 year deal(very,very doubtful in my opinion) or if the FO knows they can sign him AND it doesn't change the fact we'd still have room to grab another one next offseason too.(I'd be shocked if we had the capability to add Shields + Zimmermann/Price/whoever.)

 

Maybe not one of Zimmermann/Price/Cuerto, but someone like Anderson/Porcello/Fister would give us a rotation of Lester, Shields, Arrieta, Hammel, Anderson/Porcello/Fister, and Hendricks as depth for 2016 - 2018. Next off season you know that some of the "big spenders" (Red Sox, Nationals, Yankees, etc.) will have money to spend and will be more than willing to spend it.

 

 

Don't forget to cross out the two that got hurt . . .

[davell]

I'm not sure we should be looking at free agency for our second TORP. You are basically locking yourself in to having two post-prime guys for those spots from 2016-2020 or whenever, and those are supposed to be your golden years.

 

Back up the truck on your ridiculous stable of prospects and find someone ace-y at 25-28 in a trade.

 

I'm fine with that, although I'm surprised you would be. Based on not being able to trust pitching staying healthy. My honest guess is the FO likely falls on that side of things too. I kind of suspect any major trade we make in the near future will bring a seasoned, big bat to us and we'll use FA for pitching.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not sure we should be looking at free agency for our second TORP. You are basically locking yourself in to having two post-prime guys for those spots from 2016-2020 or whenever, and those are supposed to be your golden years.

 

Back up the truck on your ridiculous stable of prospects and find someone ace-y at 25-28 in a trade.

 

I'm fine with that, although I'm surprised you would be. Based on not being able to trust pitching staying healthy. My honest guess is the FO likely falls on that side of things too. I kind of suspect any major trade we make in the near future will bring a seasoned, big bat to us and we'll use FA for pitching.

 

The only thing I hate more than pitchers is hoarding prospects to an extreme degree.

 

But if we must have a major commitment to a pitcher, I want him to be 26, with a completely clean injury history, coming off his first 200 IP season (to prove he can do it, but not too much mileage on his arm).

[davell]

26 year olds with 1 20@ inning season and acey....At least you're not limiting your options.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

26 year olds with 1 20@ inning season and acey....At least you're not limiting your options.

 

Sure, but I'm not afraid to pay through the nose. You want Russell and three other good prospects? All yours.

[davell]

26 year olds with 1 20@ inning season and acey....At least you're not limiting your options.

 

Sure, but I'm not afraid to pay through the nose. You want Russell and three other good prospects? All yours.

 

For who? Strasburg? If he'd consider an extension, I guess so. But he won't, so I can't see that type of deal happening.

[Guest]

To put some names to that criteria, the closest I can come from this past year is Kluber or Quintana. From the year before you're looking at Latos or Holland. 2012 is Cueto and some combo of Miley, Scherzer, and Gio depending on how much you want to stretch the parameters.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For who?

 

[Guest]

26 year olds with 1 20@ inning season and acey....At least you're not limiting your options.

 

Sure, but I'm not afraid to pay through the nose. You want Russell and three other good prospects? All yours.

 

kill yourself

[Hairyducked Idiot]

26 year olds with 1 20@ inning season and acey....At least you're not limiting your options.

 

Sure, but I'm not afraid to pay through the nose. You want Russell and three other good prospects? All yours.

 

kill yourself

 

The rebuild was awesome before him, it can survive without him.

[Guest]

26 year olds with 1 20@ inning season and acey....At least you're not limiting your options.

 

Sure, but I'm not afraid to pay through the nose. You want Russell and three other good prospects? All yours.

 

kill yourself

 

The rebuild was awesome before him, it can survive without him.

 

nah, he just replaced baez

[RammyFanny]

Offer him 18/20/22 with a $22 mutual million option and see what happens.

Laughter happens.

 

He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed.

 

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have his perfect offer from a team he wants to play for or else he would be signed by now. I agree that the overwhelming majority of players take the highest bid, but sometimes a player will leave money on the table for other reasons (location, AL/NL, losing team/contending team, etc.) A serious discussion with the FO explaining the likelihood of agreeing to the option because of increased revenue in the next few years might convince him that a 4 year/$82 million contract on a contending team is the best way to go.

 

I understand that not all the top free agents will be available by next offseason, but I feel there will be enough that it's best to wait.

 

Honestly, I think there is a legit chance that everyone does make it to FA.