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

[Old Style]

I wonder if Heyward will opt out?

 

 

...

[davell]

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'd think they go like this.....

 

1- Schwarber- At least to some American League teams. He's a relatively proven power bat, that has made strides defensively in the Outfield too.

2- Happ- The versatility and upside power, along with the control, are obvious reasons teams will like him. Discipline too. The swing and miss is the main reason they wouldnt. But, I think he's very close to Schwarber, because of the extra control.

 

3-Edwards- A clear step below the first two. May be even lower currently, due to the lack of velo at the end, the forearm issue involved, and his recent struggles because of this. Honestly, he may be off the board for some teams, due to the unresolved forearm issue. If he's given a clean bill of health, he's an easy 3rd here though.

 

4- Almora- He's got plenty of warts. But, he's a solid defensive CF(at least for now) and hits lefties pretty well. Honestly, I doubt his value is ever higher than it is currently. But, he may be a guy more valuable to keep, than what we could get via trade.

 

5- (Tie) Bote and Montgomery- Bote has to learn to hit or lay off the upper zone stuff, but I think he will. He has lots of versatility and an attorney excellent glove. His value is rising. Montgomery seems like a guy who has mid rotation upside, but may fit best in his current role of swing guy. Not sure where his value lies, but I'd figure it's more because of his versatility, than because a team is completely sold he's a long term rotation answer.

 

In prospect terms, here's my guesses as to what these guys are worth.....

 

Schwarber- Top 50 prospect, plus a top 10 guy from a decent system.

Happ- Top 50 prospect, plus a top 30 guy from a decent system.

Edwards- Top 125 prospect, plus top 20 guy from a decent system.

Almora- Top 150 prospect, plus top 30 guy from a decent system.

Bote- Top 10 and top 20 prospect from a decent system.

Montgomery- Top 10 and top 20 prospect from a decent system.

 

Addison Russell seems like he'll get released. I definitely think that's what we'll do, if we can't find a trade. If we can find a trade, I think it'd be dependent on him getting "cleared", meaning no suspension. I don't see this happening at all, nor should it. But, if it does somehow, I figure some team may give up 2 top 30 guys from a decent system, in order to take their shot. But I think it would need to happen before we even are required to tender him, because I don't think we will.

 

Not that I think we'll trade him, but I think Contreras still has VERY solid value, slightly more than anyone on this list. I figure even after his down year, you could get a top 50 prospect, plus a top 150 guy as well. And if not, I don't think there's any chance we'd consider moving him.

 

Further down, I figure to move Duensing or Kintzler, it takes a top 15-20 prospect from our system. To move Chatwood, it'd take a top 100 guy.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Schwarber is what he is- a DH disguised as a platoon LF. It was obvious when he came up and it's still obvious. Rizzo is the heart and soul of this team and replacing his offense, defense, and leadership would be hard to do.

[davell]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Schwarber was absolutely a decent LF this year and will continue to be, if he keeps the weight down.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

I feel like if we sign Bryce Harper its probably after we promise him that he will be surrounded by his All Star friends Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant. So I don't see us trading Anthony Rizzo or Kris Bryant.

[Bote McBoteface]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

[Sammy Sofa]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If anything, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

If Zobrist is back next year, he's perfect to lead off when he's in the lineup.

 

Besides that, if they do sign Harper, really any combo of him, Rizzo and Bryant going 1-2-3 when Zobrist isn't in is likely the best option. No need for them to chase something like a "leadoff hitter."

[toonsterwu]

 

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.

 

FIrst, I have no idea what baseballmogul is. I assume it's a game of some sort.

 

2nd, what happens if you don't get Harper/Machado? I actually think the chances at Harper at slightly greater than at midseason, due to the Nationals tanking, but there's going to be a lot of teams involved. And I should add on top of that ... a lot of teams that can spend will be involved, and to top that off, a lot of teams that can spend in the short term, which is critical, IMO, to at least Harper, and probably Machado.

 

This isn't to say the Cubs won't be in it. I suspect they will be, although I still question how hard they go after Machado.

 

This is to simply say that the chances of not landing either is quite high, and the ability to improve this team is somewhat limited. The farm system is still a year or so away from another major trade, and that's if all goes well. That means you have to trade from the major league inventory, which is fine if you add pieces, but the value of Happ/Almora/Schwarber, while better than last year in all likelihood, is still somewhat debatable.

 

Like I said, I don't think the Cubs will actually deal Rizzo, but I don't think it's ridiculous to not ponder the possibility when there's some limitations on this team's ability to make moves this offseason. One could say ... hey, if all goes well, we'll be better, but it's baseball. It's not impossible to see several guys take a step back, either due to age, or luck.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Harper or bust. This roster needs swagger.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The proper response to scraping two useful months out of the rotting husk of Cole Hamels is to shake his hand and comp his tickets to the next Cubs Convention. Not picking up his $20 million option.

[toonsterwu]

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

 

My guess would be something like ... ugh ... uh ... Edwards Jr./Schwarber/Montgomery/Happ/Almora/Bote

 

Tbh, I'm not real sure. The pen market is strong, so maybe that depresses Edwards Jr.'s value a bit, but in this day and age, someone's bound to place high value if he's put on the market. I doubt the Cubs put him out there. I wanted to go Happ next, but ... I feel like teams can find something similar to Happ without trading a boatload. My gut says Schwarber next, but my head says Montgomery, a bit more proven and a versatile lefty. I think there's too much unknown about Bote right now, although you could probably make a case to slap him higher. Almora's glovework is fine, but I'm not sure the bat ever becomes much.

[toonsterwu]

 

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.

 

I'd be open to dealing Schwarber as well, but ... I'm not real sure what Schwarber gets in this market. I'm not suggesting it's chump change, but ... I'm just not real sure. Tbh, I'm not real sure on Happ either. At one point this year, I kept thinking Happ might be able to netus a solid starter, with all the starter's woes, but ... what team deals a young-ish starter away for Happ? I keep thinking something like Zack Godley for Ian Happ, which I'm sure there'd be mixed opinions about, but I'm sorta okay with it IF the Cubs added another starter, but I'm not all that convinced the Diamondbacks would do that. Maybe I'm overvaluing how teams may value some young-ish starters, but I'm not sure the paradigm has shifted all that much.

 

And as you note, Schwarber's pretty much a platoon guy as of now, so I wonder. I dunno, it's tough to gauge the value of our most likely MLB trade chips.

 

____

 

Realistically, the most likely out come is still running a fairly similar unit to what we ran out this year, with some small changes, perhaps a big pen signing (or two).

[toonsterwu]

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.

 

Depends on if he wants more security or money. I doubt he gets 20 mil a year ... but I could see him get something like 3/45? Maybe even a tick higher.

[KrisBryantisaBeast]

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.

 

Depends on if he wants more security or money. I doubt he gets 20 mil a year ... but I could see him get something like 3/45? Maybe even a tick higher.

 

Someone is really going to give Hamels 3 years? That seems risky.

[toonsterwu]

The proper response to scraping two useful months out of the rotting husk of Cole Hamels is to shake his hand and comp his tickets to the next Cubs Convention. Not picking up his $20 million option.

 

I'd be surprised if the Cubs pondered Hamels option all that much. The only argument would be that it's for one year, but even then, I highly doubt it.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the Cubs went to Hamels to see if they could work out a 2 ... maybe 3 year deal. Maybe. Although I still think it's more likely that they trade for a SP this winter ... and this is assuming they don't find a way to dump Chatwood, which might necessitate 2 SP's in the offseason (if they don't bring Hamels back).

[toonsterwu]

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.

 

Depends on if he wants more security or money. I doubt he gets 20 mil a year ... but I could see him get something like 3/45? Maybe even a tick higher.

 

Someone is really going to give Hamels 3 years? That seems risky.

 

I don't think it's impossible. More than likely, it wouldn't be a straight 3, 2 and an option, 2 and a trigger, or something. But so many teams are looking for pitching. Maybe 3/45 is high, now that I look at last year's signings, but he isn't exactly in Jason Vargas territory yet, and he finished strong. If he didn't finish strong, I'd probably be thinking Jason Vargas territory ... 2/16 or so, but he finished strong. Maybe I'm being too bullish on this guess ... maybe 2/24. Either way, Hamels would likely prefer the option, now that I think about it, as he can likely pick up a cheap 1 year deal next year anyways, even if he has a bad campaign.

 

My personal hunch is actually that, assuming he doesn't come here, he'll end up on the Nationals, who are looking for a lefty starter. It'd be a blow to Phillies fans, but that'd be my guess.

[davell]

I like Hamels a lot. But, you can't give him 20 mill, unless we're just A-OK blowing last the top end of the luxury tax. If we are, then keeping him in a one year commitment makes perfect sense, considering the control we've got over the rest of our rotation.

 

But, no one is going to give him a guaranteed 3 years based off 12 or however many starts he made for us, at his age.

 

If the Luxury Tax is a concern, you've gotta let him walk and add a different one year, depth option type. If we need more than that, I think we wait until the deadline to attack it.

[Backtobanks]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

I'm fine with all-or-nothing. Its the nothing that we had too much of. Just give me more of the all. If you want more "clutch" contact, then sign Chili to a lifetime contract or something. Your take is horrible, if I didn't make it clear.

[jersey cubs fan]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

I'm tired of this constant complaint at the end of every Cubs season. A certain segment of the audience always claims the thing the Cubs need is fewer all or nothing hitters and more contact guys.

[Bertz]

Hamels is pretty comfortably worth 1/20. IMO, but I don't expect him back. The team's payroll situation is too tight currently, and picking it up and trying to flip him could be too problematic for what would likely only be a moderate reward.

 

I expect one of Harper/Machado, and then a trade of Schwarber or Happ to net some pitching and/or payroll flexibility. If they swing and miss on the two big guys, I see a belt tightening kind of winter, where they try and improve the team's payroll situation going forward while only adding low cost/short commitment types to the big league club.

[Tim]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

We rated pretty well on strikeout rate this year. We scored fewer runs with a higher variance per game than last year when we were poor with the strikeout rate. What makes you think strikeouts are the problem?

 

Strikeout rate has a negative correlation with runs scored in MLB this year, but it is pretty small at -.235.

 

Home run rate has a correlation that is more than twice as strong at a positive .544

 

On Base percentage has a correlation of .907, which is really high. In fact, once again it ranks as the single biggest "causal" factor for runs scored.

 

 

HR 0.544443909

SB 0.195054943

BB% 0.445137019

K% -0.234992411

ISO 0.653393876

BABIP 0.513961878

AVG 0.731114957

OBP 0.907251889

SLG 0.865150567

wOBA 0.938307495

wRC+ 0.714276419

BsR 0.245655124

[davell]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

I'm tired of this constant complaint at the end of every Cubs season. A certain segment of the audience always claims the thing the Cubs need is fewer all or nothing hitters and more contact guys.

 

We need guys who can catch the ball.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

 

You should have watched the 2018 season then if you didn't want guys swinging for the fences.

[Cubswin11]

I know theres no such thing as a lead-off hitter but i feel like the offense is missing a Fowler-type. I’d like to find one of those this offseason. If nothing else, it’ll stop Joe from putting one of middle of the order hitters at lead-off. Who is available?

 

 

We need a guy who can put the bat on the ball in clutch situations (to move runners over, to hit a sacrifice fly, etc.). I'm tired of watching batter after batter swing for the fences and then strike out with men in scoring position. We have too many all-or-nothing hitters.

I'm tired of this constant complaint at the end of every Cubs season. A certain segment of the audience always claims the thing the Cubs need is fewer all or nothing hitters and more contact guys.

It’s literally been the complaint of every team that made the playoffs and didn’t win the WS going back to 2008 (that’s the first real team I followed being online). Like literally every team had the same complaint/articles written.