Kris Bryant is awesome and we were always right to love him

[ConstableRabbit]

Yeah I think it works if you bring in another star. Rendon is the most obvious, but there's a million permutations. For example, you could sign Rendon for 10/250ish and trade Kris to the Rays for Austin Meadows and Brendan McKay. You're comparable at 3b while only getting ~5M more expensive, and used Kris' trade value to address two trouble spots of the 2020 roster in CF and #5 starter.

 

Also, because of the presence of guys like Bote and Happ with positional flexibility, and also given that you can ask for the world for Kris, you're not locked into a specific Kris replacement like Rendon. You could just as easily sign Cole and send Kris to the Braves or Twins for outfielder help for example.

 

It's a really smart idea IMO, though I understand how tough it is to pull off in the real world.

Yeah, but you're stuck with Rendon for his age 30-40 seasons lol

[squally1313]

Yeah I think it works if you bring in another star. Rendon is the most obvious, but there's a million permutations. For example, you could sign Rendon for 10/250ish and trade Kris to the Rays for Austin Meadows and Brendan McKay. You're comparable at 3b while only getting ~5M more expensive, and used Kris' trade value to address two trouble spots of the 2020 roster in CF and #5 starter.

 

Also, because of the presence of guys like Bote and Happ with positional flexibility, and also given that you can ask for the world for Kris, you're not locked into a specific Kris replacement like Rendon. You could just as easily sign Cole and send Kris to the Braves or Twins for outfielder help for example.

 

It's a really smart idea IMO, though I understand how tough it is to pull off in the real world.

Yeah, but you're stuck with Rendon for his age 30-40 seasons lol

And that’s after you somehow convince the Tampa bay Rays, of all horsefeathering teams, to take a two years left in arbitration Kris Bryant.

[Sammy Sofa]

another annual 6-7 WAR player

 

It is a pretty big jump to essentially assume that's what he is going forward. 4-5 fWAR player would be, IMO, a safer bet.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Sammy Sofa

[Bertz]

Yeah I think it works if you bring in another star. Rendon is the most obvious, but there's a million permutations. For example, you could sign Rendon for 10/250ish and trade Kris to the Rays for Austin Meadows and Brendan McKay. You're comparable at 3b while only getting ~5M more expensive, and used Kris' trade value to address two trouble spots of the 2020 roster in CF and #5 starter.

 

Also, because of the presence of guys like Bote and Happ with positional flexibility, and also given that you can ask for the world for Kris, you're not locked into a specific Kris replacement like Rendon. You could just as easily sign Cole and send Kris to the Braves or Twins for outfielder help for example.

 

It's a really smart idea IMO, though I understand how tough it is to pull off in the real world.

Yeah, but you're stuck with Rendon for his age 30-40 seasons lol

 

Exactly, that's the tradeoff. Kris is still very valuable because even though he's expected to make ~45M the next two years, we're still in the year to year phase with him. If he screws up his shoulder, or gets fat, or forgets how to hit, or whatever, we can cut bait for two more years By doing the Rendon swap, you're locking in two years earlier than you had to, and that's a very real cost.

 

So I'm totally with TT to the extent that I'm not doing this for some "spread the money around" horsefeathers. You get another star, and then use the Kris trade to surround that guy with a stronger cast of reinforcements. You don't trade Kris to make room for Castellanos and a reliever or something.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How can anyone here think the org is going to make any kind of real effort to sign him when he becomes a FA? You have to be REALLY confident in the idea that the Cubs' current window isn't already just held open a very rickety popsicle stick to be basically endorsing that the Cubs hold on to him for 2 years and then only settle for a comp pick (I think?) when he leaves.

 

Plus we're talking about fantasy ideas of using the return for Bryant to turn around and get someone like Lindor, and not just shipping him off for another damn tank-rebuild.

 

The Cubs have won the bidding war for a top end FA in 3 of the last 4 years, and by the time Bryant actually hits FA they are far less likely to be near an artificial spending limit, or they're not going to want to be paying for Bryant's 30s because everything else has fallen apart.

 

Trading Bryant for Lindor doesn't make the team better or save money, doesn't extend the competitive window(they're FA the same year), and it dilutes the value of whoever plays 2B between Baez/Lindor.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yeah I think it works if you bring in another star. Rendon is the most obvious, but there's a million permutations. For example, you could sign Rendon for 10/250ish and trade Kris to the Rays for Austin Meadows and Brendan McKay. You're comparable at 3b while only getting ~5M more expensive, and used Kris' trade value to address two trouble spots of the 2020 roster in CF and #5 starter.

 

Also, because of the presence of guys like Bote and Happ with positional flexibility, and also given that you can ask for the world for Kris, you're not locked into a specific Kris replacement like Rendon. You could just as easily sign Cole and send Kris to the Braves or Twins for outfielder help for example.

 

It's a really smart idea IMO, though I understand how tough it is to pull off in the real world.

 

Rendon is really the only player who is remotely comparable that will be available and doesn't cost significant trade assets on top of money. Yes there are permutations where you trade Bryant for assets and then trade lesser assets for a different star that unexpectedly matures into a Bryant caliber player, but that 'paperclip to mansion' type of incremental improvement opportunity exists for every player ever.

 

And even if you accept that the investment in Rendon is 1) objectively worthwhile to make and 2) not increasing total dollars spent in an offseason where dollars are gonna be tight, you still need to find a team that is going to be willing to go all in for a short term benefit in getting Bryant. I don't want to overstate how much Kris freakin Bryant's trade market might be limited, but there are a finite number of teams willing to go all in for him to the extent required for the Cubs to trade him. The Rays aren't trading for Bryant in a million years, to use that example.

[Deeg]

The rationale for trading Bryant is simple. If you want a major shakeup, you can't do it without trading someone who's part of the core. Almora, Happ and Russell have little to no trade value. Schwarber is LH Rob Deer at this point - you could get an asset for him but not anyone really impactful. Sure you can trade Quintana, but he's not going to bring back a major haul with a year left on his deal as a MORP.

 

So that leaves the core. Baez? The face of the franchise and likely to sign an extension. Contreras? Maybe, but while Amaya could be a star he's minimum 2 years away. Rizzo is on a team-friendly deal. So who does that leave? If the Cubs truly believe the team is broken (which I think they do) and have the balls to try and fix it (which I'm not sure they do) then it's hard to see a path without trading Bryant. Otherwise it's just more incremental change.

[Backtobanks]

The Tribune had a story the other day about what big changes that might happen if the Cubs fail to make the playoffs this year and said that one of the core four (Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, or Contreras) would have to be traded to make a difference. The days of offering Russell, Schwarber, Almora, Happ, etc. to get us something of value are over. I would think Contreras would be the most likely to go of the four.

[jersey cubs fan]

The idea of trading him is dumb and bad.

[Clem Fandango]

Has anyone even bothered to mention the whole conundrum of why the Indians would even trade Lindor for Bryant in the first place? Jose Ramirez is already a more valuable 3B than Bryant and adding him would push him to a corner OF spot where his value sinks a bit while creating a soul crushing gap at SS for Cleveland and the Indians wind up probably paying more money for Bryant for the same amount of team control.

 

Trying ot get Lindor without Bryant, like Tom was talking about makes more sense obviously, but the Indians have no more reason to trade Lindor than the Cubs have to trade Bryant.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody was suggesting trading Bryant to the Indians.

 

And the Indians have all but flat out said they're not going to pay big money to extend their current core.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Sammy Sofa

[Derwood]

Nobody was suggesting trading Bryant to the Indians.

 

lol, wut?

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody was suggesting trading Bryant to the Indians.

 

lol, wut?

 

Unless I missed someone, anyone talking about Bryant and the Indians have been talking about moving the return from trading Bryant elsewhere to the Indians.

[Derwood]

Nobody was suggesting trading Bryant to the Indians.

 

lol, wut?

 

Unless I missed someone, anyone talking about Bryant and the Indians have been talking about moving the return from trading Bryant elsewhere to the Indians.

 

Then I misunderstood. Lot's of "replace Bryant with Lindor" talk without much "in between" talk

[Sammy Sofa]

It doesn't have to be Bryant, but I agree with the sentiment that the FO are going to have to move someone key, because simply coming back with basically the same team that's been delivering diminishing results on the back of a decidedly unpalatable combination of expecting raw talent to overcome dumb baseball is....not good. Guys like Russell, Happy, Bote, Caratini, Heyward and Almora are going to get you a whole lot of jack and horsefeathers.

 

This FO is supposed to be some kind of brain trust, and they've backed themselves into the position where they need to get creative and actually finally live up to that rep again.

[Clem Fandango]

 

lol, wut?

 

Unless I missed someone, anyone talking about Bryant and the Indians have been talking about moving the return from trading Bryant elsewhere to the Indians.

 

Then I misunderstood. Lot's of "replace Bryant with Lindor" talk without much "in between" talk

 

Samesies, my bad.

[BigSlick]

If I had any faith that they would get close to comparable value for him, I would be down for trading him.

 

If they're going to get one MLB guy and some lottery tickets, horsefeathers that

I’m not against trading KB in principle, especially assuming we feel doubtful we can resign him, but I’m EXTREMELY doubtful we’d get commensurate return on him. A team would have to be stocked with 4+ blue chip prospects and interested in trading them to make it even possibly make sense. So, a competitive team that would also be interested in giving up their farm for a rental who plays positions they may already have sufficiently filled.

 

I just don’t see that match happening. I’d rather ride out his tenure with the Cubs and see what happens. But my phone is always open for offers.

[squally1313]

It doesn't have to be Bryant, but I agree with the sentiment that the FO are going to have to move someone key, because simply coming back with basically the same team that's been delivering diminishing results on the back of a decidedly unpalatable combination of expecting raw talent to overcome dumb baseball is....not good. Guys like Russell, Happy, Bote, Caratini, Heyward and Almora are going to get you a whole lot of jack and horsefeathers.

 

This FO is supposed to be some kind of brain trust, and they've backed themselves into the position where they need to get creative and actually finally live up to that rep again.

There's a weird disconnect for me. "This FO whiffed badly on filling out the bottom half of the roster and might suck, so this offseason, after probably making the playoffs for the 5th year in a row, I want them to pull off two massive deals, including getting fair value for the best player on the team, that will end with moving your second best player off his position."

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, that is certainly one way to describe a thing.

 

Returning with the same shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic approach that just leads to diminishing returns with a team clearly not build to hold up over the course of an season on top of a cruddy farm system is another.

 

I don't see how they could skip getting creative and not just expect to see yet another steadily declining variation of what we've gotten for 3 years running now (he says, fully anticipating yet another "BUT THEY MADE THE PLAYOFFS" response that completely glosses over how increasingly bad they look in the second half yet again, where the all too likely best case scenario is that they, also yet again, technically stagger across the finish line before another quick exit).

[badger]

Aren't we supposed to have 5 players in the top 100 now? Is that objectively cruddy? Legit question as MiLB has never been an area I follow super closely nor understand what makes an elite vs. great vs. good vs. average vs. below average vs. cruddy farm system.

[CubinNY]

Yes, that is certainly one way to describe a thing.

 

Returning with the same shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic approach that just leads to diminishing returns with a team clearly not build to hold up over the course of an season on top of a cruddy farm system is another.

 

I don't see how they could skip getting creative and not just expect to see yet another steadily declining variation of what we've gotten for 3 years running now (he says, fully anticipating yet another "BUT THEY MADE THE PLAYOFFS" response that completely glosses over how increasingly bad they look in the second half yet again, where the all too likely best case scenario is that they, also yet again, technically stagger across the finish line before another quick exit).

Their badness is a reflection of the front office and manager. They are a large market club and can afford whatever their best player is asking for. Assuming he'll just walk is predicated on the belief that the Cubs won't pay. That may true, but it's not because they cannot. If they trade Bryant for prospects, whether or not they are MLB ready, they are signaling that the door/window has closed for this group. They might as well get rid of everyone and start all over again. They are not going to replace his production.

[Sammy Sofa]

Aren't we supposed to have 5 players in the top 100 now? Is that objectively cruddy? Legit question as MiLB has never been an area I follow super closely nor understand what makes an elite vs. great vs. good vs. average vs. below average vs. cruddy farm system.

 

Most of the rankings seem to still have the Cubs' system in the bottom 10 or even the bottom 5.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Sammy Sofa

[Cubswin11]

Aren't we supposed to have 5 players in the top 100 now? Is that objectively cruddy? Legit question as MiLB has never been an area I follow super closely nor understand what makes an elite vs. great vs. good vs. average vs. below average vs. cruddy farm system.

 

Most of the rankings seem to still have the Cubs's system in the bottom 10 or even the bottom 5.

Which is BS and probably changes over winter, they probably should be in the 15-20 range and not like 24-30 range they’ve been in by most. They’re starting to have some real talent emerge again down there. There’s a chance we are hovering around a top 10 system next year at this time organically if no big pieces are trade and not by loading it up trading KB or anyone big.

[squally1313]

Yes, that is certainly one way to describe a thing.

 

Returning with the same shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic approach that just leads to diminishing returns with a team clearly not build to hold up over the course of an season on top of a cruddy farm system is another.

 

I don't see how they could skip getting creative and not just expect to see yet another steadily declining variation of what we've gotten for 3 years running now (he says, fully anticipating yet another "BUT THEY MADE THE PLAYOFFS" response that completely glosses over how increasingly bad they look in the second half yet again, where the all too likely best case scenario is that they, also yet again, technically stagger across the finish line before another quick exit).

 

But they aren't playing bad in the second half. 47-43 in the first half, 23-18 in the second half. Yeah, their RD suggest they've been getting lucky, but you've spent plenty of time trashing that metric, so can't point to that. They are a 90 win team that's been playing like a 90 win team for pretty much the entire year, once people stop focusing on individual series and almost blowing a 9 run lead they put up against one of the best pitchers in baseball. Look at the KB/Rizzo/Baez/Contreras combination in 2016 or even 2017, and then look at what they are doing now. That core, all still in their prime, is more than capable of being the best players on a championship team. They let Joe throw his favorite toy at the top of the order for half a season, they lost their starting second baseman for an entire year, and they generally screwed up the rest of the roster. Those things seem WAY easier to fix than "let's find some team who wants to give up the farm for two years of Bryant and then maybe $35m a year (which, no one has named any reasonable options here), and then flip some similar group of prospects to pick up a dude to play Baez's spot, have the same amount of control as Bryant, and also has been, per fWAR, statistically the most similar offensive player in baseball to Bryant this year."

 

Like, if you're just making the meatball argument that this will 'shake up the team' and 'light a fire under their ass', then just go for it. What, the other three remaining players are supposed to see our best player get traded, and then decide to play better than what they are doing now? Fill out a full, competent 25 man roster with complementary players. As fun as it would be to see Baez and Lindor up the middle joking around with each other and turning a sweet DP once a week...it doesn't actually get you anywhere.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, that is indeed a laundry list of reasons and excuses sort of hovering around why they continue to slide. Akin to your invitation to meatball, if you want to go with the "everything is fine; minimal changes in their approach to team building and player development need to be made," then have at it. I'll be mildly stunned if it results in a season better than this one.

 

I think going forward someone like Lindor is both more valuable than Bryant, and is more likely be be signed by the Cubs (and to be able to be signed by the Cubs in the first place). It's obviously a pipe dream, make a wish type of scenario, but it's certainly not suggestion just trying to "shake up the team," or to blow it up.