Cubs offseason thread

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

I don't know, I'd think it'd be just as annoying to watch Cubs prospects we have salivated over for the past few years becoming stars down at the G-Spot. I realize this would probably be the worst time in the last however many years to trade their best player to the Cubs but at the end of the day making your team a winner is the most important thing. If the Sox think they can get better players from the Cubs than any other team, they need to make that deal.

 

The bigger problem isn't that they are unwilling to deal Sale across town, but that they are telling the world that they won't. That's just dumb. With as many trade suitors out there, the likelihood that he gets traded to the Cubs is low. A good GM says he will entertain all offers and make the deal that best fits the White Sox needs going forward.

 

Not if the whole thing is a PR move. I mean, like TT said, the Cubs aren't gonna pay what the White Sox want. Maybe the Cubs have already told them as much. So by telling the media "we aren't gonna trade to the Cubs", all the Sox meatballs eat that up.

 

The White Sox don't believe in rebuilding, and they're going to be looking for something bright and shiny that can be rushed to the big leagues.

 

I can see the Red Sox offering Benintendi plus, the Dodgers offering Urias and Puig plus; The Yankees offering pretty much the entire hauls they received for Chapman and Miller. If we had a snowball's chance in that mix, we'd probabaly need to start with Schwarber and Baez. And that's not going to be on the table.

[jehr]

 

Edwards and Colome? Sure, I can see that. But, I'm an Almora fan. And in no way, shape, or form do I think he's giving us 13 WAR in any 3 year period, like Kiermaier just has done. They'd want, rightfully so, much more than Almora for him.

Not that I disagree with you on Almora, I don't think the value trade-off is that far off. Defensive skills begin to decline earlier than offensive... And a huge chunk of the aforementioned 13 WAR was based on 2015 defense with Kiermaier. All that said, I'd still do it too... Just that I don't think it's quite as one-sided if you consider age, years of control and future, projections on both CFers. From TBs perspective, they'd only make that deal if they think Almora is more likely to hit his ceiling than what other teams would be offering.

[UMFan83]

SportsMockery report so be forewarned but whatever I like a nice juicy rumor, even of dubious origins, to discuss during a slow period,

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

If this were a legit rumor, I guess the Cubs would rather lock up 90% of Arrieta for 4 years at maybe $20m a year if the Tigers eat a bunch of salary (he's scheduled to make $28m the next 3 seasons and then $22 in his last season) than sign Arrieta for 6 years $200m

Edited November 29, 2016 by UMFan83

[David]

Can we do that without trading Arrieta

[Clem Fandango]

Doesn't really make sense for the Tigers to trade Verlander for one year of Arrieta + others, as I imagine it'd be. You don't sell off while acquiring contending pieces like Arrieta.

 

That being said... yes, please.

[davell]

I know nothing about SportsMockery. I'll guess that a deal involving those guys is a 3 team trade. My question is who has more value? 34 year old Verlander on a 3/84 deal or Jake on his last pre arb year? I'd say its probably close.

[davell]

If theres anything to this, it just reemphasizes how unlikely it is we keep Jake after 2017. In a way, its LIKE keeping him 2 more years past that. Which would be great.

[UMFan83]

If theres anything to this, it just reemphasizes how unlikely it is we keep Jake after 2017. In a way, its LIKE keeping him 2 more years past that. Which would be great.

 

If it is unlikely, is it because of his salary demands, the Cubs not being sold on him being paid ace money, or both?

[Clem Fandango]

If theres anything to this, it just reemphasizes how unlikely it is we keep Jake after 2017. In a way, its LIKE keeping him 2 more years past that. Which would be great.

 

If it is unlikely, is it because of his salary demands, the Cubs not being sold on him being paid ace money, or both?

 

I think both, especially after this season. Before the year he wanted 7 years, and he probably would've demanded $175-$200 mil. But after he decided to forget how to throw strikes this year, I'm not so sure the Cubs want to take their chances on him at that cost, and I don't think he's willing to cut a discount. In fact, he's not going to and has said he won't. I don't think Jake and the Cubs are a fit long term, and personally, I'm okay with that.

 

If we can use Jake to get Verlander who, all things considered, was arguably the best pitcher in major league baseball this year, I'd be beyond giddy. We're not getting 8 win Jake back, he's probably 4-5 win Jake at best and even now that's not a guarantee. I trust Verlander to repeat his performance more than I trust Jake to recapture his

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Doesn't really make sense for the Tigers to trade Verlander for one year of Arrieta + others, as I imagine it'd be. You don't sell off while acquiring contending pieces like Arrieta.

 

That being said... yes, please.

 

The Tigers need to lower payroll, but most of their high paid players are necessary pieces. Trading Verlander's contract, saving 12 mil this year while getting a pitcher of similar caliber is a big win for them. It's less clear what the point would be for the Cubs, Verlander's age 35 and 36 seasons at 2/56 don't have much upside. Having a guy under contract past 2017 doesn't mean a ton when he'll be nearing the end of his career and he's super expensive on top of that. I mean, why not just pay Rich Hill his money at that point?

[davell]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Guess we'll have to mystery team the horsefeathers out of this one, if we want Hill.

[mul21]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[We Got The Whole 9]

Wow I proposed a Jake/Verlander centered swap a few months ago on another board. Wonder if that's real or not.

[Post Count Padder]

Cubs are apparently interested in Daniel Hudson as a middle reliever, according to the Tribune. I like the idea, when I think of 2011 Daniel Hudson, not 2016 Daniel Hudson who went through a stretch of giving up 33 hits in just 9 innings.

 

This year's Trevor Cahill?

[Cubswin11]

Cubs are apparently interested in Daniel Hudson as a middle reliever, according to the Tribune. I like the idea, when I think of 2011 Daniel Hudson, not 2016 Daniel Hudson who went through a stretch of giving up 33 hits in just 9 innings.

 

This year's Trevor Cahill?

I love this idea and have said I wanted to target him as a bullpen option a few weeks ago. If you take out those 33 hits and 9 innings he only gave up 32 hits in 59 innings this year....

[We Got The Whole 9]

Sounds like he started tipping pitches or something. That's quite a league adjustment.

[Pushfrog98]

Doesn't really make sense for the Tigers to trade Verlander for one year of Arrieta + others, as I imagine it'd be. You don't sell off while acquiring contending pieces like Arrieta.

 

That being said... yes, please.

 

The Tigers need to lower payroll, but most of their high paid players are necessary pieces. Trading Verlander's contract, saving 12 mil this year while getting a pitcher of similar caliber is a big win for them. It's less clear what the point would be for the Cubs, Verlander's age 35 and 36 seasons at 2/56 don't have much upside. Having a guy under contract past 2017 doesn't mean a ton when he'll be nearing the end of his career and he's super expensive on top of that. I mean, why not just pay Rich Hill his money at that point?

Keep in mind, Verlander is a package deal with Upton.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Doesn't really make sense for the Tigers to trade Verlander for one year of Arrieta + others, as I imagine it'd be. You don't sell off while acquiring contending pieces like Arrieta.

 

That being said... yes, please.

 

The Tigers need to lower payroll, but most of their high paid players are necessary pieces. Trading Verlander's contract, saving 12 mil this year while getting a pitcher of similar caliber is a big win for them. It's less clear what the point would be for the Cubs, Verlander's age 35 and 36 seasons at 2/56 don't have much upside. Having a guy under contract past 2017 doesn't mean a ton when he'll be nearing the end of his career and he's super expensive on top of that. I mean, why not just pay Rich Hill his money at that point?

 

The durability is a pretty big deal. I know 2015 happened but Verlander is a pretty good bet for 200+ innings and has been a 5+ WAR guy for 6 of his last 8 seasons. He bounced back in a big way last season and once again proved to be a total horse.

 

Hill on the other hand... myriad issues staying healthy and probably should not be heavily relied on to pitch a lot of innings.

[BigSlick]

The White Sox making this grand proclamation that they wont trade with the Cubs so epitomizes why that organization is totally adrift, mediocre and myopic.

 

Yes, make some empty gesture that ends up spiting yourself more than anybody else because you're terrified of helping the better organization that shares the city with you. God damn its stupid.

[davell]

So, Levine asked in a tweet if we're looking at Hudson as a starter or as a reliever. With his injury history, is it even worth trying him as a starter at this point?

[Agony and Ivy]

So, Levine asked in a tweet if we're looking at Hudson as a starter or as a reliever. With his injury history, is it even worth trying him as a starter at this point?

 

Nope. The dude had 2 TJS between throwing pitches in the big leagues.

[jehr]

The White Sox making this grand proclamation that they wont trade with the Cubs so epitomizes why that organization is totally adrift, mediocre and myopic.

 

Yes, make some empty gesture that ends up spiting yourself more than anybody else because you're terrified of helping the better organization that shares the city with you. horsefeathers its stupid.

Hard to believe they're still smarting from the Sosa trade. It's their own damned fault they overpaid for George Bell so bad.

[davell]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[UMFan83]

 

We'll see. I'm sure if an opportunity came up to make a big move to improve short and long term of team they will make it.

[davell]

[tweet]

[/tweet]