Cubs add Chapman for Torres, et al. imb wishes we paid more

[TruffleShuffle]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

Chapman is not eligible for a qualifying offer if traded in-season.

[ChiCubsFan]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

 

Wasn't that changed?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Yikes, like it much less

[David]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

 

Wasn't that changed?

 

Yes. 4 years ago.

[soccer10k]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

I thought you couldn't extend aqua lifting offer to a guy traded midseason and therefore you wouldn't get a pick if he leaves?

[Butterscup]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

I thought you couldn't extend aqua lifting offer to a guy traded midseason and therefore you wouldn't get a pick if he leaves?

 

this is the best auto-correct.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Hahahahahaha. I love how the first round pick thing still comes up.

[TruffleShuffle]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

Chapman is not eligible for a qualifying offer if traded in-season.

 

oops, forgot about that rule change. my bad.

[soccer10k]

if he were to leave the cubs would get a pick around #30 overall, which definitely should be counted as value.

 

I thought you couldn't extend aqua lifting offer to a guy traded midseason and therefore you wouldn't get a pick if he leaves?

 

this is the best auto-correct.

 

Haha. Didn't even notice that because it kept trying to change midseason to midsession. Glad I didn't notice.

[tenderdracula]

Seriously can't believe it would be torres for 2 months of chapman straight up.

[Butterscup]

Seriously can't believe it would be torres for 2 months of chapman straight up.

 

well its definitely not going to be straight up.

[TruffleShuffle]

it would be pretty funny if the yankees got just about the best case scenario (trade for a top 50 prospect at a position of need) but then hank steinbrenner vetoed the deal because he wants the yankees to make some implausible run at the wild card.

[tenderdracula]

Seriously can't believe it would be torres for 2 months of chapman straight up.

 

well its definitely not going to be straight up.

 

The Montgomery trade was exactly the type of transaction I've come to expect from this front office. Giving up Torres and more for the rest of the year of Chapman seems out of character and kind of surprising.

[Gmoney08]

Seriously can't believe it would be torres for 2 months of chapman straight up.

 

well its definitely not going to be straight up.

 

The Montgomery trade was exactly the type of transaction I've come to expect from this front office. Giving up Torres and more for the rest of the year of Chapman seems out of character and kind of surprising.

 

This reminds me of Red Sox Thoyer! Balls to the Wall!

[Thusly Boned]

Seriously can't believe it would be torres for 2 months of chapman straight up.

 

well its definitely not going to be straight up.

 

The Montgomery trade was exactly the type of transaction I've come to expect from this front office. Giving up Torres and more for the rest of the year of Chapman seems out of character and kind of surprising.

 

If it was just the exchange of named players, I have to believe this would have been done hours ago. There has to be more to it.

[Rob]

I hope all you guys with a moral issue regarding rooting for Chapman don't pull for an NFL team, where Chapmans are a dime a dozen.

 

Yeah, I don't actually follow the NFL. So I'm good on that account.

[toonsterwu]

I don't like this. It's hard to see this not getting done at this stage, although you never know.

 

It isn't that I have some insane love for Gleyber that would lead me to want to keep him. I think he'll be good ... but he was always more likely a trade asset than anything, barring a ridiculous season where he forced his way up (and that didn't happen).

 

It isn't that I dislike Chapman. He's good, and he'll kick the pen up a notch.

 

I'm just not sure that Chapman, though, takes us through the roof, and without achieving that, the idea of Torres and more for him ... I'm just not sure I buy it. Now, I get why Theo and Co. are doing it. It's their "Addison Russell" trade to an extent - selling a top talent to try and go all-in (and for all the talk about our deep system ... if we move Torres and another quality piece, it'll take a few years to rebuild the system with Contreras graduating as well). IIRC,Theo praised Beane's guts to make a move like that, and Theo and Co. see a good team that could be kicked up a notch.

 

The Montgomery trade, though, was supposed to buy us some freedom from this. They addressed the core pen need, leaving room to go for a home run if they wanted.

 

Torres and multiple Cubs pieces just seems way too much to me. Guess we'll have to see how it shakes out and what other pieces come along with it.

 

I Also mildly worry about fit and culture issues. Emphasis on mildly. The Nationals added Papelbon last year, which wrecked some of the camaradarie in season. Maddon's a better manager of personalities than Matt Williams was, but Rondon would have every right to be peeved a bit.

[UMFan83]

 

well its definitely not going to be straight up.

 

The Montgomery trade was exactly the type of transaction I've come to expect from this front office. Giving up Torres and more for the rest of the year of Chapman seems out of character and kind of surprising.

 

This reminds me of Red Sox Thoyer! Balls to the Wall!

 

That's exactly what I was going to say

[SRQCub]

 

well its definitely not going to be straight up.

 

The Montgomery trade was exactly the type of transaction I've come to expect from this front office. Giving up Torres and more for the rest of the year of Chapman seems out of character and kind of surprising.

 

If it was just the exchange of named players, I have to believe this would have been done hours ago. There has to be more to it.

 

This just has to be a discussion on who the "+" is, and whether or not an extension is actually in place, presumably.

[SRQCub]

I don't like this. It's hard to see this not getting done at this stage, although you never know.

 

It isn't that I have some insane love for Gleyber that would lead me to want to keep him. I think he'll be good ... but he was always more likely a trade asset than anything, barring a ridiculous season where he forced his way up (and that didn't happen).

 

It isn't that I dislike Chapman. He's good, and he'll kick the pen up a notch.

 

I'm just not sure that Chapman, though, takes us through the roof, and without achieving that, the idea of Torres and more for him ... I'm just not sure I buy it. Now, I get why Theo and Co. are doing it. It's their "Addison Russell" trade to an extent - selling a top talent to try and go all-in (and for all the talk about our deep system ... if we move Torres and another quality piece, it'll take a few years to rebuild the system with Contreras graduating as well). IIRC,Theo praised Beane's guts to make a move like that, and Theo and Co. see a good team that could be kicked up a notch.

 

The Montgomery trade, though, was supposed to buy us some freedom from this. They addressed the core pen need, leaving room to go for a home run if they wanted.

 

Torres and multiple Cubs pieces just seems way too much to me. Guess we'll have to see how it shakes out and what other pieces come along with it.

 

I Also mildly worry about fit and culture issues. Emphasis on mildly. The Nationals added Papelbon last year, which wrecked some of the camaradarie in season. Maddon's a better manager of personalities than Matt Williams was, but Rondon would have every right to be peeved a bit.

 

Why? Maddon doesn't seem to be a guy who plays by the book, and the Cubs could be bringing Chapman in to get the "toughest" 3 outs, as opposed to the "final" 3 outs. He's been doing that job just fine in NY. Why not in Chicago?

[Gmoney08]

Any chance Cubs are talking extension talks and Chapman is listening cause Cubs are guaranteeing him a chance to try a convert to SP next year?

[TruffleShuffle]

Why? Maddon doesn't seem to be a guy who plays by the book, and the Cubs could be bringing Chapman in to get the "toughest" 3 outs, as opposed to the "final" 3 outs. He's been doing that job just fine in NY. Why not in Chicago?

 

he can also be employed in the 7th or 8th innings if there are tougher lefty batters coming up. in his career lefties have hit .123 off him, with an OPS below .400. he's allowed one home run to a lefthanded batter in his major league career.

[imb]

Guys the holdup is that the Cubs are trying to reverse their position in the negotiations. They knew the Yankees had all the power, so they took them right to the edge of a deal (it's called "edging" google it) and then said "actually if he won't sign an extension you can't have Torres." Now the Yankees are in a position of trying to please the Cubs because all the other suitors pulled out once the Cubs and the Yankees paired up

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Guys the holdup is that the Cubs are trying to reverse their position in the negotiations. They knew the Yankees had all the power, so they took them right to the edge of a deal (it's called "edging" google it) and then said "actually if he won't sign an extension you can't have Torres." Now the Yankees are in a position of trying to please the Cubs because all the other suitors pulled out once the Cubs and the Yankees paired up

 

If you broke this up into a series of tweets I bet it might get some retweets.