2019-20 Offseason Rumors/General Chit-Chat

[Cubswin11]

What was so bad faith other than it dragging out? The top guys signed for below expectations my ass. Harper, Machado, etc. all got huge deals unless you believed the $500 million thing. Other guys still largely ended up with getting paid fairly/what they should. I think the owners realized the dragging out was a bad look and things need to look better for optics. I don’t know why the signings came so late, I’m sure it was for a lot of reasons. Partly on players potentially holding out/passing on deals (we heard this with Moustakas for example, partly on teams.

 

I get that the deals are huge still and even why fans are so eager to support the owners, but this is completely disingenuous. There's a $170 million dollar gap between what Harper signed for and what you claim to be the expectation I'm talking about even though we also know that's not the expectation I was talking about. The numbers most popular for Harper in the years approaching FA, years where he had all the same flaws, were $400+ until they weren't because reasons. Not long after Harper signs, maybe a little before I forget, the Angels pounce on a Trout extension right in the range Harper was speculated to get for years and the owners got themselves a hugely successful reset. Also a reminder that the Cubs don't sign Darvish until his price got dragged down during the previous offseason

I remember all that, Trout got 400+. Harper and Manny never were getting 400-500+ outside of the speculation of writers (which set the ridiculous “expectations”), they still got 300+. The cheating Astros tanked Yu’s price, imo, that had a real effect with where teams were willing to go and probably even pursue just like Strasburg and Rendon probably got a bump this year with how their playoffs and WS went.

[Cubswin11]

I remember all that, Trout got 400+. Harper and Manny never were getting 400-500+ outside of the speculation of writers (which set the ridiculous “expectations”), they still got 300+. The cheating Astros tanked Yu’s price, imo, that had a real effect with where teams were willing to go and probably even pursue just like Strasburg and Rendon probably got a bump this year with how their playoffs and WS went.

 

Yep, and at this point I'm going to suggest that your satisfaction with their payday is a huge factor in the narrative changes you've made. It's convenient that the Astros org is separate from the owner in the case of Yu, whatever mechanics you want to blame it on the end result is the same - his price dropped and the Cubs pounced, which doesn't happen without the drop in price. There's no bump for Strasburg or Rendon so much as the owners taking advantage of diminished expectations after two really bad faith FA periods because they can

Just gonna have to agree to disagree here man. There were clear market factors that affected Yu, Strasburg and Rendon with their postseason performances. The Cubs aren’t the bad guys because the market soured on Yu.

 

I’m not satisfied by anything here and am not changing narratives other than pointing out the expectations for Bryce and Manny were largely based on media speculation and nothing we’d ever seen before in reality and they still ended up with record deals. You’re self admittedly being really conspiratorial here, which maybe you’re right. But I don’t buy it.

[Deeg]

A hard deadline on signing FA is really dumb, but if they got their senses together and “colluded” with the players and agents to have a general understanding horsefeathers is gonna largely be done FA wise by Christmas/early January that would be a good thing. Not apples to apples since it’s a capped league but the NBA basically has the wink-wink agreement between teams and players/agents to get FA deals done pretty quickly in to FA.

 

This "not a capped league" argument is a crock of shlt. The LT is a salary cap because the owners have colluded to treat it like one. And because they don't call it one - and because the union is a beaten dog and they have their stupid antitrust exemption - they got their salary cap without having to institute a salary floor. It's a win-win for the owners screwing the players and fans.

[Cubswin11]

A hard deadline on signing FA is really dumb, but if they got their senses together and “colluded” with the players and agents to have a general understanding horsefeathers is gonna largely be done FA wise by Christmas/early January that would be a good thing. Not apples to apples since it’s a capped league but the NBA basically has the wink-wink agreement between teams and players/agents to get FA deals done pretty quickly in to FA.

 

This "not a capped league" argument is a crock of shlt. The LT is a salary cap because the owners have colluded to treat it like one. And because they don't call it one - and because the union is a beaten dog and they have their stupid antitrust exemption - they got their salary cap without having to institute a salary floor. It's a win-win for the owners screwing the players and fans.

Well teams have and continue to go over the LT, so it technically is not capped. But that's not the point. The point of the post quoted was to show that there's other leagues without hard FA signing deadlines that clearly have to have some "collusion" agreements to get deals done sooner that later with FA because it's best for business to not let FA sit out there and have a stagnant free agency period.

 

I completely agree with a salary floor being in place if there's any sort of salary ceiling (even if it's artificial in the LT). Especially since a lot of the teams who spend well below where they should get the benefit of revenue sharing, national TV deals, comp picks, etc.

[Derwood]

Any talk is salary cap/floor without a comprehensive revenue sharing system is a non-starter

[jersey cubs fan]

Any talk is salary cap/floor without a comprehensive revenue sharing system is a non-starter

hell yeah derwood wants to subsidize the brewers

[Derwood]

Any talk is salary cap/floor without a comprehensive revenue sharing system is a non-starter

hell yeah derwood wants to subsidize the brewers

 

I don't want a salary cap at all

[Bertz]

 

I continue to think they make a ton of sense for Willson, even with Zunino. Zunino probably sucks, so Willson would be their everyday guy. If Zunino does bounce back, they could use Willson for ~50 games at C and as a good RH bat cycling in at 1B/DH to balance out all those lefties the rest of the time. I also imagine they think they could fix Willson's framing, which is fair since they're really quite good at fixing guys.

[Brian]

Brett Anderson on the Brewers seems like fate, going to get destroyed by that idiot about 5 times next year.

[Cubswin11]

Brett Anderson on the Brewers seems like fate, going to get destroyed by that idiot about 5 times next year.

horsefeathers that horsefeathers, I hope his arm blows out or we are least pummel him when we face him. He’s such a little horsefeathers who clearly has some kind of inflated complex about himself. Lol at the “adapt or die” thing when he threw a horsefeathers fit over “being tinkered with.” Also implying he’s some sort of renaissance man when it comes to his pitching styles, get fucked dude.

 

 

[d_money]

The MLB luxury tax thresholds are:

 

 

2019: $206 million

 

2020: $208 million

 

2021: $210 million

 

A $2M increase is nowhere near keeping pace with the FA contracts. I highly doubt the owners will ever agree to get rid of the tax in general (thanks a lot Tony Clark) and assuming it’s here to stay - hopefully the next CBA will allow for a more fluid tax threshold, b/c an increase of $2M is ridiculous.

[UMFan83]

https://twitter.com/cubs_live/status/1206076823353921536?s=21

 

To be clear, I have never in my life heard of Mike f’ing Murphy having any sort of legitimate sources.

[UK]

https://twitter.com/cubs_live/status/1206076823353921536?s=21

 

To be clear, I have never in my life heard of Mike f’ing Murphy having any sort of legitimate sources.

 

Holy horsefeathers, they have a show again?

 

I might have to listen for nostalgia purposes.

[Cubswin11]

This account somehow has over 4,000 followers

 

 

[Deeg]

You could flee to Antarctica and it still wouldn’t be far enough outside that box.

[Derwood]

This account somehow has over 4,000 followers

 

 

 

Ha ha ha. That’s stupid. Clearly they’re grooming Brandon Morrow to play third

[Bertz]

I'm less apoplectic about trading Bryant than most, but man trading KB and then using nearly all of that money on a square peg like Castellanos would be real tough to get behind.

[Backtobanks]

I'm less apoplectic about trading Bryant than most, but man trading KB and then using nearly all of that money on a square peg like Castellanos would be real tough to get behind.

 

Trading Bryant is really stupid and if it's followed by trading Schwarber and the return is Robles and a few solid young pitchers, then it makes more sense.

[Deeg]

I'm less apoplectic about trading Bryant than most, but man trading KB and then using nearly all of that money on a square peg like Castellanos would be real tough to get behind.

 

Trading Bryant is really stupid and if it's followed by trading Schwarber and the return is Robles and a few solid young pitchers, then it makes more sense.

 

It makes sense except that you'd never get Robles for Schwarber straight up.

[CubsWin]

I'll be really disappointed if the Cubs trade Bryant and the return isn't worth it. But I'm already disappointed by the knee-jerk, closed-minded thread the possibility has spurred. You guys really can't see why a trade of Bryant could realistically work out helping the Cubs? It's not that hard. It doesn't take much imagination. The Cubs just can't get an average return, and the players have to fill certain positions.

 

Man, it's like the old days on this board. Group think has run amok on this issue.

[Backtobanks]

I'm less apoplectic about trading Bryant than most, but man trading KB and then using nearly all of that money on a square peg like Castellanos would be real tough to get behind.

 

Trading Bryant is really stupid and if it's followed by trading Schwarber and the return is Robles and a few solid young pitchers, then it makes more sense.

 

It makes sense except that you'd never get Robles for Schwarber straight up.

 

Robles would be in the Bryant deal.

[CubinNY]

I'll be really disappointed if the Cubs trade Bryant and the return isn't worth it. But I'm already disappointed by the knee-jerk, closed-minded thread the possibility has spurred. You guys really can't see why a trade of Bryant could realistically work out helping the Cubs? It's not that hard. It doesn't take much imagination. The Cubs just can't get an average return, and the players have to fill certain positions.

 

Man, it's like the old days on this board. Group think has run amok on this issue.

“Group think” in a post is dead damn give away that a post is worthless. The Cubs don’t have to trade Bryant. There is no realistic scenario where trading him makes the Cubs better.

[Deeg]

I'll be really disappointed if the Cubs trade Bryant and the return isn't worth it. But I'm already disappointed by the knee-jerk, closed-minded thread the possibility has spurred. You guys really can't see why a trade of Bryant could realistically work out helping the Cubs? It's not that hard. It doesn't take much imagination. The Cubs just can't get an average return, and the players have to fill certain positions.

 

Man, it's like the old days on this board. Group think has run amok on this issue.

“Group think” in a post is dead damn give away that a post is worthless. The Cubs don’t have to trade Bryant. There is no realistic scenario where trading him makes the Cubs better.

 

Again, you can’t say that authoritatively until you can measure the return.

 

What strikes me in all these diatribes preemptively condemning a Bryant trade is the lack of an alternative plan. Staying with a failing core that will bail en masse in two years doesn’t sound like a winner to me. Contrary to Theo’s shilling, status quo is a very, very bad option.

 

I don’t want to trade Bryant. But anyone could see that if the Cubs were going to make meaningful changes, one or both of he and Contreras would have to be dealt. We’re not in a great situation here but I’m not dismissing any option until I know the details of that option.

[CubsWin]

I'll be really disappointed if the Cubs trade Bryant and the return isn't worth it. But I'm already disappointed by the knee-jerk, closed-minded thread the possibility has spurred. You guys really can't see why a trade of Bryant could realistically work out helping the Cubs? It's not that hard. It doesn't take much imagination. The Cubs just can't get an average return, and the players have to fill certain positions.

 

Man, it's like the old days on this board. Group think has run amok on this issue.

“Group think” in a post is dead damn give away that a post is worthless. The Cubs don’t have to trade Bryant. There is no realistic scenario where trading him makes the Cubs better.

I got an idea. Why don't I respond to a post about posters making knee-jerk, close-minded reactions by posting a knee-jerk, close-minded response.

 

CubinNY, I must say that was the exact comment I was expecting, and it totally and completely explains your thought process on this issue.

[Bertz]