The 2018-2019 Cubs Offseason Rumors & Discussion Thread AKA The Rickettssss take a dump on EVERYTHING

[toonsterwu]

It feels like Boras is setting the starting point at 14 years/500 million, with all the talk of playing till 40 and Zack Greinke's AAV. If that's the case, I really only see one team jumping anywhere near that, and that's Philadelphia.

 

As for the Cubs, I tend to think it's all talk at this point in time. I don't think Theo wants anything to do with 14/500, if that's the case, and I can't exactly blame him for that. Those are huge numbers, and one would assume if there is an early opt out that the pre-opt out AAV's would be level, or higher. Still, one has to remember that Theo's ideal situation is internal development. He talked so wistfully for awhile about wondering what those Red Sox teams would have looked like had he kept some of the kids, like Reddick, around. It's not hard to imagine Theo and Co. talking themselves into the idea that, from a cost-benefit assessment, they might buy the idea that their kids, when factoring in costs, could be more worthwhile if they really buy into them.

 

I suspect, though, it's all talk at this juncture, with the hopes that some of the top end numbers get dragged down a bit. Akin to how they went about Darvish last year, sorta. Try and fill enough holes (as was the hope with Chatwood) that you aren't forced to break the bank, while hoping that the price comes down enough to facilitate some sort of move, or has given you enough time to make moves to clear salary.

 

___

 

A lot probably depends on the Yankees, as always. If they really pull off a Machado move, as many seem to suspect right now, and Philly is desperate for a star acquisition, Harper may get an offer he can't refuse. It's hard to see the Yankees sitting pat this offseason, and the predictions of a Machado/Corbin double dip make a ton of sense for them. Still, the Nationals have set the bar already, by going to 300 million and a 30 mil AAV, so it's not hard to see them bridging the gap somehow, and I tend to think the Nationals probably are still the favorites for Harper. I mean, while it's a lot, a 30 mil to 35 mil AAV jump isn't that big, so it would come down to years and creative financing, and the Nationals clearly are okay with creative ways to fit things in (namely deferrals). I still think, for all the talk about 14 years and total numbers, the amount before whatever opt-out year they decide on will be most critical.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Again, the Cubs aren't poor. But there is a huge difference between making two moves to essentially pay Cole Hamels $13 million for one year and signing somebody for $400 million plus over 14.

 

"somebody"

 

And that difference is more or less inconsequential unless you think Harper is bad(no) or that MLB and the Cubs in particular are going to see a huge reversal in their revenue. The avenues to effectively use money to improve your team are getting narrower every year, the idea that the 2027 Cubs might be disadvantaged by having Bryce Harper take up a smaller percentage of the payroll than he does today is not a compelling argument.

 

Not the 2027 Cubs even. Try the Cubs in three years when they hope to sign Bryant and maybe Baez and others and they have $80 million wrapped up in three players already. Sure, I suppose they can worry about that then.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again: If the Cubs want to be like the Yankees and have an enormous payroll and not care what they spend, go bonkers. I'd love it. But until they show that, you have to pick and choose. I'd have waited to sign Harper and not gone after Yu Darvish last season, knowing that they aren't going to be willing to sign everybody.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Again, the Cubs aren't poor. But there is a huge difference between making two moves to essentially pay Cole Hamels $13 million for one year and signing somebody for $400 million plus over 14.

 

"somebody"

 

And that difference is more or less inconsequential unless you think Harper is bad(no) or that MLB and the Cubs in particular are going to see a huge reversal in their revenue. The avenues to effectively use money to improve your team are getting narrower every year, the idea that the 2027 Cubs might be disadvantaged by having Bryce Harper take up a smaller percentage of the payroll than he does today is not a compelling argument.

 

Not the 2027 Cubs even. Try the Cubs in three years when they hope to sign Bryant and maybe Baez and others and they have $80 million wrapped up in three players already. Sure, I suppose they can worry about that then.

 

3 years from now you're talking about essentially a different franchise. Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Lester, Zobrist, Hendricks, Schwarber, Montgomery, Quintana, the whole bullpen sans Edwards, all at free agency. If anything Harper extends your window of competitiveness by having a star caliber player to build around instead of completely starting from scratch and spending your money on worse players than Harper anyway.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

 

"somebody"

 

And that difference is more or less inconsequential unless you think Harper is bad(no) or that MLB and the Cubs in particular are going to see a huge reversal in their revenue. The avenues to effectively use money to improve your team are getting narrower every year, the idea that the 2027 Cubs might be disadvantaged by having Bryce Harper take up a smaller percentage of the payroll than he does today is not a compelling argument.

 

Not the 2027 Cubs even. Try the Cubs in three years when they hope to sign Bryant and maybe Baez and others and they have $80 million wrapped up in three players already. Sure, I suppose they can worry about that then.

 

3 years from now you're talking about essentially a different franchise. Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Lester, Zobrist, Hendricks, Schwarber, Montgomery, Quintana, the whole bullpen sans Edwards, all at free agency. If anything Harper extends your window of competitiveness by having a star caliber player to build around instead of completely starting from scratch and spending your money on worse players than Harper anyway.

 

Great. Sounds like we'd be the Angels, just not quite as good.

[David]

 

Not the 2027 Cubs even. Try the Cubs in three years when they hope to sign Bryant and maybe Baez and others and they have $80 million wrapped up in three players already. Sure, I suppose they can worry about that then.

 

3 years from now you're talking about essentially a different franchise. Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Lester, Zobrist, Hendricks, Schwarber, Montgomery, Quintana, the whole bullpen sans Edwards, all at free agency. If anything Harper extends your window of competitiveness by having a star caliber player to build around instead of completely starting from scratch and spending your money on worse players than Harper anyway.

 

Great. Sounds like we'd be the Angels, just not quite as good.

 

what the hell are you talking about? jesus

[Bryants Disco Ball]

 

3 years from now you're talking about essentially a different franchise. Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Lester, Zobrist, Hendricks, Schwarber, Montgomery, Quintana, the whole bullpen sans Edwards, all at free agency. If anything Harper extends your window of competitiveness by having a star caliber player to build around instead of completely starting from scratch and spending your money on worse players than Harper anyway.

 

Great. Sounds like we'd be the Angels, just not quite as good.

 

what the hell are you talking about? jesus

 

Meaning, we'd be starting from scratch with Bryce Harper. And that's like the Angels with Mike Trout and nothing else.

 

You douche.

[Backtobanks]

There is a part of me that enjoys trying to brainstorm how to optimize the roster given constraints, team building has always been a fun puzzle in that way for me. The Dodgers especially have shown the benefit of not being slave to free agency to find really good production(Turner, Muncy, Hill, etc).

 

That said, even if I'm in that brain, and I promise to not beat this drum for a month, I have a hard time understanding why you bring back Hamels if you're stifled financially. If you successfully bring in Harper(and it's easy to do at the 246 mark without Hamels' contract), then the remaining spots on the roster needing filled(pre-Hamels) are *prime candidates* for the type of outside the box thinking that you'd need for upgrading on the cheap. 5th/6th starter, bullpen arms, backup C, an infielder to play SS, etc. I mean, it's cherry picking, but Anibal Sanchez, Jeremy Hellickson, and old pal Trevor Cahill were league average starters for a combined 4 million and change. Erik Kratz was a minor league signing last offseason, outside of Cozart getting signed to play 3B no SS made 3 million in free agency last year, and we all know how good relievers come and go like the wind regardless of their origin. Harper's productivity gives you the most cost certainty if you're dealing with a limited budget, and he also more easily enables you to make a trade of Happ/Almora too, unlike if you're taking a gamble on Timmy Waiverclaim where you'd like the depth.

 

That's what gets me about the crying poor stuff. If it's true, then you very clearly shouldn't have paid Hamels! So either it's not true, or the front office made a huge blunder on day 1 by means of not optimizing the roster and/or way overestimating Hamels. I'm continuing to think it's the former, at least to the degree that they didn't shoot themselves in the foot on the Harper front and they simply want any Harper suitor to be willing to take on their salary dumps without seeing them as a threat for him. If it's the latter I'll be as upset with the front office as I've been their entire tenure.

 

Maybe Theo understands that our rotation may not be as deep as people think without Hamels. Will Darvish come back as a TOR starter? Will Quintana be more than adequate? How much longer will Lester be as effective as he has been? Meanwhile, we want to slightly improve our good offense by paying a king's ransom to one player.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Not the 2027 Cubs even. Try the Cubs in three years when they hope to sign Bryant and maybe Baez and others and they have $80 million wrapped up in three players already. Sure, I suppose they can worry about that then.

 

3 years from now you're talking about essentially a different franchise. Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Lester, Zobrist, Hendricks, Schwarber, Montgomery, Quintana, the whole bullpen sans Edwards, all at free agency. If anything Harper extends your window of competitiveness by having a star caliber player to build around instead of completely starting from scratch and spending your money on worse players than Harper anyway.

 

Great. Sounds like we'd be the Angels, just not quite as good.

 

If we use this logic then without Harper they're what, the Orioles?

[Bryants Disco Ball]

 

3 years from now you're talking about essentially a different franchise. Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Lester, Zobrist, Hendricks, Schwarber, Montgomery, Quintana, the whole bullpen sans Edwards, all at free agency. If anything Harper extends your window of competitiveness by having a star caliber player to build around instead of completely starting from scratch and spending your money on worse players than Harper anyway.

 

Great. Sounds like we'd be the Angels, just not quite as good.

 

If we use this logic then without Harper they're what, the Orioles?

 

No, I'd hope we would have used it to sign our own core guys like Bryant. And if guys like him have flamed out, I guess worst case scenario we have to use the money on the top free agents three years from now.

 

Look, I want Bryce Harper. I'd love Bryce Harper. Is PTR willing to do it?

[imb]

It feels like Boras is setting the starting point at 14 years/500 million, with all the talk of playing till 40 and Zack Greinke's AAV. If that's the case, I really only see one team jumping anywhere near that, and that's Philadelphia.

 

It doesn't matter what it's "set at." It could be 25/900. The thing is going to have so many opt outs that the length of the contract is meaningless.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It feels like Boras is setting the starting point at 14 years/500 million, with all the talk of playing till 40 and Zack Greinke's AAV. If that's the case, I really only see one team jumping anywhere near that, and that's Philadelphia.

 

It doesn't matter what it's "set at." It could be 25/900. The thing is going to have so many opt outs that the length of the contract is meaningless.

 

That's still *really* not how opt-outs work.

[imb]

It feels like Boras is setting the starting point at 14 years/500 million, with all the talk of playing till 40 and Zack Greinke's AAV. If that's the case, I really only see one team jumping anywhere near that, and that's Philadelphia.

 

It doesn't matter what it's "set at." It could be 25/900. The thing is going to have so many opt outs that the length of the contract is meaningless.

 

That's still *really* not how opt-outs work.

 

we're all aware of your wrong opinion of how opt-outs work, you don't need to bring it up every time it's mentioned

[Sammy Sofa]

I suspect, though, it's all talk at this juncture, with the hopes that some of the top end numbers get dragged down a bit. Akin to how they went about Darvish last year, sorta.

 

I too hope that this year's baller FA class is inexplicably dragged down in cost like last year's FA class was dragged down because it sucked, and because teams didn't want to spend too much in the face of the baller FA class that is happening RIGHT NOW.

[Lefty]

What does PTR stand for?

[Banedon]

What does PTR stand for?

 

Poor Tom Ricketts

[Lefty]

What does PTR stand for?

 

Poor Tom Ricketts

 

"Poor" in the money sense?

[Sammy Sofa]

What does PTR stand for?

 

Poor Tom Ricketts

 

"Poor" in the money sense?

 

Yup. Nobody actually pities Tom Ricketts beyond how he inexplicably makes Ted Cruz look like a charming, put together dude.

[Banedon]

What does PTR stand for?

 

Poor Tom Ricketts

 

"Poor" in the money sense?

 

As in, he and his family are stupid rich but from time to time money suddenly becomes an obstacle.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

It doesn't matter what it's "set at." It could be 25/900. The thing is going to have so many opt outs that the length of the contract is meaningless.

 

That's still *really* not how opt-outs work.

 

we're all aware of your wrong opinion of how opt-outs work, you don't need to bring it up every time it's mentioned

 

Wonder who Jason Heyward is signing with this off-season.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

That's still *really* not how opt-outs work.

 

we're all aware of your wrong opinion of how opt-outs work, you don't need to bring it up every time it's mentioned

 

Wonder who Jason Heyward is signing with this off-season.

 

horsefeathers, just slap a "NEWSFLASH: Players Who Suck Don't Opt Out" headline on there and you'll be picked up by The Athletic in no time!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

we're all aware of your wrong opinion of how opt-outs work, you don't need to bring it up every time it's mentioned

 

Wonder who Jason Heyward is signing with this off-season.

 

horsefeathers, just slap a "NEWSFLASH: Players Who Suck Don't Opt Out" headline on there and you'll be picked up by The Athletic in no time!

 

I'd only be keeping a seat warm for Da Bum, tho

[imb]

 

That's still *really* not how opt-outs work.

 

we're all aware of your wrong opinion of how opt-outs work, you don't need to bring it up every time it's mentioned

 

Wonder who Jason Heyward is signing with this off-season.

 

Yeah that’s not the point though. Players who already have leverage (due to age positional scarcity or whatever) will always ask for opt outs. Once one team is willing to kick in, they all have to. You might as well be complaining about the per year dollar figure. “But why do we have to pay him $30 million?????”

 

Because he asked for it and he could get it from someone else if not us. If you don’t want to do it, don’t, but you aren’t getting the player.

 

Consider the absurdity of wanting Harper but griping about his opt outs. It’s the price of doing business baby

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

we're all aware of your wrong opinion of how opt-outs work, you don't need to bring it up every time it's mentioned

 

Wonder who Jason Heyward is signing with this off-season.

 

Yeah that’s not the point though. Players who already have leverage (due to age positional scarcity or whatever) will always ask for opt outs. Once one team is willing to kick in, they all have to. You might as well be complaining about the per year dollar figure. “But why do we have to pay him $30 million?????”

 

Because he asked for it and he could get it from someone else if not us. If you don’t want to do it, don’t, but you aren’t getting the player.

 

Consider the absurdity of wanting Harper but griping about his opt outs. It’s the price of doing business baby

Does this mean there needs to be an opt-out cap, just like there are salary caps?

[Cubswin11]

I’m sure Bryce would sign a deal with no opt outs if he was given ~$100 million more than the highest offer and a full NTC because those are the type of trade offs you’d have to give for him not having opt outs. Whether or not you think opt outs are good or bad or like them or not doesn’t matter. They’re a reality you have to deal with and accept that you likely have to offer them when going after the upper end FAs and if you aren’t willing to include them you aren’t getting a guy most of the time. Edited November 8, 2018 by Cubswin11

[Cubswin11]

 

Wonder who Jason Heyward is signing with this off-season.

 

Yeah that’s not the point though. Players who already have leverage (due to age positional scarcity or whatever) will always ask for opt outs. Once one team is willing to kick in, they all have to. You might as well be complaining about the per year dollar figure. “But why do we have to pay him $30 million?????”

 

Because he asked for it and he could get it from someone else if not us. If you don’t want to do it, don’t, but you aren’t getting the player.

 

Consider the absurdity of wanting Harper but griping about his opt outs. It’s the price of doing business baby

Does this mean there needs to be an opt-out cap, just like there are salary caps?

I’m pretty sure there are some rules and restrictions with them (or maybe I’m confusing them with options).