The way too early, but I'm bored, Off-season Options Thread

[George Hayduke]

 

So, what does everyone else want? Or do you prefer going after a 2B, and just figuring Bote, Zobrist, Zack Short, and whoever the 2B addition is, can handle things......

 

Man the Cubs have come a long way from 2015's "LOLOL, so many talented shortstops in the org, how will we ever fit them all on the field?!?" to 2018's "so do we think Zack Short can handle innings at short next year or?"

[The_Achiever]

 

So, what does everyone else want? Or do you prefer going after a 2B, and just figuring Bote, Zobrist, Zack Short, and whoever the 2B addition is, can handle things......

 

Man the Cubs have come a long way from 2015's "LOLOL, so many talented shortstops in the org, how will we ever fit them all on the field?!?" to 2018's "so do we think Zack Short can handle innings at short next year or?"

 

Love me some Nico Hoerner.

 

It's crazy how Addison Russell's offensive game has gone in the tank. I thought this guy was going to be a superstar.

[Sammy Sofa]

Huge if true, guy. HUGE IF TRUE.

[Sammy Sofa]

(It's not true)

[17 Seconds]

there is going to be a ridiculous amount of pressure on theo this offseason

[Regular Show]

there is going to be a ridiculous amount of pressure on theo this offseason

 

It depends on what happens in the postseason and how far they go. If they reach the WS there really isn't any pressure on Theo or Maddon. Even reaching the NLCS will satisfy most critics.

[davell]

I guess in some ways, there is a bit. But, context is seriously needed. 4 straight playoff appearances, 3 NLCS's in a row, with a possibility of making it 4. We won that thing we hadn't won since 1908......

 

Sure, Theo has built something here that now puts out serious expectations......

 

But, there's teams with more.

 

The Yankees, because they're the Yankees. And because they haven't won since 2009 and because they reset their luxury tax, at the detriment of this season. And they've got gobs more money than the Cubs do.

 

The Dodgers, for the exact same reasons as the Yankees, except it's been 30 years since they've won it all.

 

The Nats, because they've had great rosters for a while and it's getting close to last fall for them, for a bit anyway, unless they keep Bryce.....

 

The Phillies, because they've rebuilt. They thought they would contend this year, but now will finish under .500. But, literally have 100+ mill to spend, just to hit the LOW end of the LT. They've GOT to spend their money and spend it wisely, not easy to do in FA. Especially if they miss on the big 2.

 

So yeah, there's a bit of pressure on Theo...... But, it's not that much.

[17 Seconds]

I guess in some ways, there is a bit. But, context is seriously needed. 4 straight playoff appearances, 3 NLCS's in a row, with a possibility of making it 4. We won that thing we hadn't won since 1908......

 

Sure, Theo has built something here that now puts out serious expectations......

 

But, there's teams with more.

 

The Yankees, because they're the Yankees. And because they haven't won since 2009 and because they reset their luxury tax, at the detriment of this season. And they've got gobs more money than the Cubs do.

 

The Dodgers, for the exact same reasons as the Yankees, except it's been 30 years since they've won it all.

 

The Nats, because they've had great rosters for a while and it's getting close to last fall for them, for a bit anyway, unless they keep Bryce.....

 

The Phillies, because they've rebuilt. They thought they would contend this year, but now will finish under .500. But, literally have 100+ mill to spend, just to hit the LOW end of the LT. They've GOT to spend their money and spend it wisely, not easy to do in FA. Especially if they miss on the big 2.

 

So yeah, there's a bit of pressure on Theo...... But, it's not that much.

 

well it's more about last offseason than anything. assuming they don't go deep in the playoffs (which they still could), people are going to pin that entirely on theo for the darvish and chatwood moves. i'm not saying it's fair, but he's going to have to answer for that. also, the fact that multiple young hitters horsefeathers the bed is going to have people worrying.

[soccer10k]

Eh, with the media rights deals coming up and a drop in attendance both there’s going to be some pressure. This was a pretty boring and frustrating Cubs team during the regular season.

 

Haven’t they jacked up ticket prices the last couple seasons? I feel like that could be just as big of a reason the attendance dropped as the play on the field.

[davell]

I guess in some ways, there is a bit. But, context is seriously needed. 4 straight playoff appearances, 3 NLCS's in a row, with a possibility of making it 4. We won that thing we hadn't won since 1908......

 

Sure, Theo has built something here that now puts out serious expectations......

 

But, there's teams with more.

 

The Yankees, because they're the Yankees. And because they haven't won since 2009 and because they reset their luxury tax, at the detriment of this season. And they've got gobs more money than the Cubs do.

 

The Dodgers, for the exact same reasons as the Yankees, except it's been 30 years since they've won it all.

 

The Nats, because they've had great rosters for a while and it's getting close to last fall for them, for a bit anyway, unless they keep Bryce.....

 

The Phillies, because they've rebuilt. They thought they would contend this year, but now will finish under .500. But, literally have 100+ mill to spend, just to hit the LOW end of the LT. They've GOT to spend their money and spend it wisely, not easy to do in FA. Especially if they miss on the big 2.

 

So yeah, there's a bit of pressure on Theo...... But, it's not that much.

 

well it's more about last offseason than anything. assuming they don't go deep in the playoffs (which they still could), people are going to pin that entirely on theo for the darvish and chatwood moves. i'm not saying it's fair, but he's going to have to answer for that. also, the fact that multiple young hitters horsefeathers the bed is going to have people worrying.

 

I mean, they've won 94 games. More than last year in a season our MVP played hurt since May and missed over 60 games. And in a year we had our nine figure new starter pitch 8 games. With lots of other stupid horsefeathers go on as well. Honestly, it anything, this season has shown how far we've come as an organization.

[Sammy Sofa]

Eh, with the media rights deals coming up and a drop in attendance both there’s going to be some pressure. This was a pretty boring and frustrating Cubs team during the regular season.

 

Haven’t they jacked up ticket prices the last couple seasons? I feel like that could be just as big of a reason the attendance dropped as the play on the field.

 

It's ridiculous how expensive the tickets are.

[Backtobanks]

I guess in some ways, there is a bit. But, context is seriously needed. 4 straight playoff appearances, 3 NLCS's in a row, with a possibility of making it 4. We won that thing we hadn't won since 1908......

 

Sure, Theo has built something here that now puts out serious expectations......

 

But, there's teams with more.

 

The Yankees, because they're the Yankees. And because they haven't won since 2009 and because they reset their luxury tax, at the detriment of this season. And they've got gobs more money than the Cubs do.

 

The Dodgers, for the exact same reasons as the Yankees, except it's been 30 years since they've won it all.

 

The Nats, because they've had great rosters for a while and it's getting close to last fall for them, for a bit anyway, unless they keep Bryce.....

 

The Phillies, because they've rebuilt. They thought they would contend this year, but now will finish under .500. But, literally have 100+ mill to spend, just to hit the LOW end of the LT. They've GOT to spend their money and spend it wisely, not easy to do in FA. Especially if they miss on the big 2.

 

So yeah, there's a bit of pressure on Theo...... But, it's not that much.

 

well it's more about last offseason than anything. assuming they don't go deep in the playoffs (which they still could), people are going to pin that entirely on theo for the darvish and chatwood moves. i'm not saying it's fair, but he's going to have to answer for that. also, the fact that multiple young hitters horsefeathers the bed is going to have people worrying.

 

I mean, they've won 94 games. More than last year in a season our MVP played hurt since May and missed over 60 games. And in a year we had our nine figure new starter pitch 8 games. With lots of other stupid horsefeathers go on as well. Honestly, it anything, this season has shown how far we've come as an organization.

 

 

This organization has come a long way, but we're in a crucial situation depending on how deep into the playoffs they go. Every team has injuries and Bryant's certainly hurt, but the emergence of Baez and the rebound of Zobrist certainly were unexpected. Not too long ago posters were bragging about our depth (position players) and that we had 10 starters for 8 positions and worried about our pitching. This year and last our pitching has kept us competitive while the offense has failed in the clutch.

[toonsterwu]

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season.

 

Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo.

 

All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

[Bear Cub]

Rizzo isnt going anywhere.

[Tim]

Offseason priority list:

 

1) Get Bryant the best shoulder treatment possible

 

That alone will fix a lot of problems on the team.

[Banedon]

I wonder if Heyward will opt out?

 

 

...

[Backtobanks]

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season.

 

Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo.

 

All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

 

Replacing Rizzo with Schwarber? Apparently you're not thinking straight because of the loss last night.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season.

 

Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo.

 

All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

 

The hell?

 

I'm not opposed at all to the idea of moving Rizzo in the right circumstances; the part that really jumps out at me is "Schwaber's bounce back season."

 

The dude's...fine. As a platoon player. He didn't really do anything to show he should or needs to be in the lineup almost every day, which he'd have to do to effectively replace Rizzo.

[toonsterwu]

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season.

 

Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo.

 

All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

 

Replacing Rizzo with Schwarber? Apparently you're not thinking straight because of the loss last night.

 

No, the idea would be to leverage Rizzo into helping make improvements throughout the roster. Realistically, I don't think it's possible, but this isn't a strong 1st base market, and there's several teams that could look to upgrade. I don't love the constant lineup machinations, so if you could construct a deal where Rizzo nets you two key assets, and then subsequently move Schwarber to first, I don't know if it's the worst idea. To put it into a bit more specificity, say you could land a starting OF/top of the order type hitter and a 2nd baseman for Rizzo, both guys being relatively young-ish (that is, we aren't talking about 30+ year old guys) would you do it? If you could lop in Bryce Harper after that ...

 

Again, I don't think it will happen, but it has nothing to do with last night's loss.

[toonsterwu]

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season.

 

Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo.

 

All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

 

The hell?

 

I'm not opposed at all to the idea of moving Rizzo in the right circumstances; the part that really jumps out at me is "Schwaber's bounce back season."

 

The dude's...fine. As a platoon player. He didn't really do anything to show he should or needs to be in the lineup almost every day, which he'd have to do to effectively replace Rizzo.

 

That's fair. I don't love Schwarber, although a part of me does wonder if he would improve offensively at a position where there would be less physical demands on him. Finding a guy to balance with Schwarber at first likely wouldn't cost much.

 

Again, I don't really see them moving Rizzo. I just think there's a lot of limitations for the FO in ways to dramatically improve the team this offseason, and Rizzo might be the one way where they could make major changes. More than likely, they'll take their runs at Harper (maybe Machado ... I'm still not sold on that), and if they fail that, make some smaller moves here or there. I just don't love the constant lineup machinations.

[imb]

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season.

 

Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo.

 

All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

 

Replacing Rizzo with Schwarber? Apparently you're not thinking straight because of the loss last night.

 

No, the idea would be to leverage Rizzo into helping make improvements throughout the roster. Realistically, I don't think it's possible, but this isn't a strong 1st base market, and there's several teams that could look to upgrade. I don't love the constant lineup machinations, so if you could construct a deal where Rizzo nets you two key assets, and then subsequently move Schwarber to first, I don't know if it's the worst idea. To put it into a bit more specificity, say you could land a starting OF/top of the order type hitter and a 2nd baseman for Rizzo, both guys being relatively young-ish (that is, we aren't talking about 30+ year old guys) would you do it? If you could lop in Bryce Harper after that ...

 

Again, I don't think it will happen, but it has nothing to do with last night's loss.

 

wtf lol this isn't baseball mogul.

 

Anyway. You gotta prioritize one of the two bats. If you get one of them, preferably harper, our floor is probably "really good" offense and our ceiling (bryant and contreras bouncing back) is super elite.

[UMFan83]

Anyone up for taking as stab at ranking and tiering these players by trade value?

 

Unavailable, unlikely to be dealt, or not going to get enough of a return to care about so I'm not including: Quintana, Hamels, Hendricks, Lester, Cishek, Chatwood, Strop, Rizzo, Baez, Bryant, Contreras, Heyward, Zobrist, LaStella

 

Carl Edwards Jr.

Mike Montgomery

Kyle Schwarber

Albert Almora

David Bote

Ian Happ

Edited October 3, 2018 by UMFan83

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Replacing Rizzo with Schwarber? Apparently you're not thinking straight because of the loss last night.

 

No, the idea would be to leverage Rizzo into helping make improvements throughout the roster. Realistically, I don't think it's possible, but this isn't a strong 1st base market, and there's several teams that could look to upgrade. I don't love the constant lineup machinations, so if you could construct a deal where Rizzo nets you two key assets, and then subsequently move Schwarber to first, I don't know if it's the worst idea. To put it into a bit more specificity, say you could land a starting OF/top of the order type hitter and a 2nd baseman for Rizzo, both guys being relatively young-ish (that is, we aren't talking about 30+ year old guys) would you do it? If you could lop in Bryce Harper after that ...

 

Again, I don't think it will happen, but it has nothing to do with last night's loss.

 

wtf lol this isn't baseball mogul.

 

Anyway. You gotta prioritize one of the two bats. If you get one of them, preferably harper, our floor is probably "really good" offense and our ceiling (bryant and contreras bouncing back) is super elite.

 

Plus if there's enough teams out there looking to spend to try and upgrade 1B, then it would make more sense to try and sell them Schwaber as a 1B than for the Cubs to move Rizzo and then gamble on Schwarber as an everyday 1B themselves.

[Rex Buckingham]

Anyone up for taking as stab at ranking and tiering these players by trade value?

 

Unavailable, unlikely to be dealt, or not going to get enough of a return to care about so I'm not including: Quintana, Hamels, Hendricks, Lester, Cishek, Chatwood, Strop, Rizzo, Baez, Bryant, Contreras, Heyward, Zobrist, LaStella

 

Carl Edwards Jr.

Mike Montgomery

Kyle Schwarber

Albert Almora

David Bote

Ian Happ

 

 

I would go:

Edwards

Happ

Schwarber

Monty

Almora

Bote

 

I think Happ's versatility and years of control are pretty valuable, and Carl and Kyle have shown that their best is pretty dang good. Monty is a solid 5th starter/very good swing guy that a lower-tier team could see as a 3/4 type. Almora is a pretty good defender who can hit fastballs from lefties and average or worse righties. Bote is a versatile guy who plays good defense and has lots of control left, but has a long way to go with the bat and probably isn't someone you want to run out at SS, so he loses a little value as a utility IF type.

[Old Style]

What would Hamels realistically get on the open market? I want him back but $20MM seems like too much. Maybe I'm just being too stupid and picking up the option is a no brainer.