2019-20 Offseason Rumors/General Chit-Chat

[squally1313]

I love Javy as much as the next guy on here, but it seems weird to me that a player so reliant on his athleticism and fast twitch muscles is always the assumed extension. I guess I get the calculus on KB at $35 a year vs Javy at $20ish plus whatever $15m gets you, but it seems a little bit like fan service, and if that's the case, might as well lock up Rizzo too. Maybe in 5 years we can be the baseball version of the Blackhawks.

 

I think primarily to your point it's money. Because of where their respective arb salaries are, a Javy extension likely looks something like 6/110, a KB one more like 8/240. Secondarily, more athletic guys have traditionally shown to age better. Aging curves have shifted wildly the last ~10 years though so admittedly I'm not sure how true that still is.

If it's about money, to the extent that the FO is being forced into trading KB two years before he hits FA, that they can't see the Lester, Rizzo, etc deals coming off the books and make room for both of them....then we're probably screwed anyways. To the Blackhawks point, lock in the fan favorites and keep selling those jerseys.

[imb]

while these are fun experiments, i think people are going to great lengths to propose outlandish ideas that will never happen because we all know that the roster is unfixable in its/ownerships' current state. But no one wants to commit to a full blowup because we literally just did that.

[Cubswin11]

Assuming Nick ends up costing in the 17 AAV range I’d just rather use that to add all of Souza, Akiyama and 1 of Holt or Cesar for about that if that money is there.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Cubswin11

[Regular Show]

I think I'm most disappointed that the Cubs haven't tried to trade Heyward. Like not even bother to get creative or something...

 

Literally no rumors in the media this offseason or last offseason. I said attach Q to Heyward last offseason + cash and push hard to get rid of that contract. I mean I'd be willing to attach an okay prospect (+ cash) but teams are getting more reluctant to give up financial flexibility. After next season or during next season he'll have a full NTC.

 

I really don't think Theo and the Cubs' FO even broached the subject these past couple offseasons. Super disappointing and frustrating...

[abohnhoff]

I think I'm most disappointed that the Cubs haven't tried to trade Heyward. Like not even bother to get creative or something...

 

Literally no rumors in the media this offseason or last offseason. I said attach Q to Heyward last offseason + cash and push hard to get rid of that contract. I mean I'd be willing to attach an okay prospect (+ cash) but teams are getting more reluctant to give up financial flexibility. After next season or during next season he'll have a full NTC.

 

I really don't think Theo and the Cubs' FO even broached the subject these past couple offseasons. Super disappointing and frustrating...

 

Well there has to be a market for him first. Would teams even be willing to take on $40m of the remaining 4 years left on his contract? I would doubt it.

[squally1313]

while these are fun experiments, i think people are going to great lengths to propose outlandish ideas that will never happen because we all know that the roster is unfixable in its/ownerships' current state. But no one wants to commit to a full blowup because we literally just did that.

I think the roster/ownership situation makes being a top 5 team in 2021-2023ish incredibly unlikely, regardless of what current pieces we try to flip for future value. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be favored to win the division the next two years with just some minor moves. If a prospect we trade ends up turning into something, darn, I guess we'll only win 70 games in 2022 rather than 73. This doesn't really bother me too much...in 2015 I understood the fact that almost all of the core was up after 2021. After 5 years (2010-2014) of explicitly tanking, building a 7 year window of contention seemed great. Sure, it would have been nice to churn out prospects post Gleyber/Eloy. That was the way to turn an extended window into something like what the Dodgers have (7 years of 90+ wins, more undoubtedly coming). Didn't happen, and the FO should be dinged accordingly. But I think a lot of us saw this coming.

[Cubswin11]

I think I'm most disappointed that the Cubs haven't tried to trade Heyward. Like not even bother to get creative or something...

 

Literally no rumors in the media this offseason or last offseason. I said attach Q to Heyward last offseason + cash and push hard to get rid of that contract. I mean I'd be willing to attach an okay prospect (+ cash) but teams are getting more reluctant to give up financial flexibility. After next season or during next season he'll have a full NTC.

 

I really don't think Theo and the Cubs' FO even broached the subject these past couple offseasons. Super disappointing and frustrating...

He’s owed 4/96 yet and has a partial no trade clause. I think it would be incredibly hard to move him. The prospects given up would be costly to save any money and we’d still likely have to throw in a decent chunk. The Angels just had to give up the 15th overall pick from last year to move and clear some of Cozart’s money and that was for 1 year and under $15 million. I think we’d be talking multiple of Hoerner, Amaya, Marquez, Adbert, Davis, etc to even be starting conversations and we’d still have to be throwing in 10s of millions or taking back a bad deal too.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think I'm most disappointed that the Cubs haven't tried to trade Heyward. Like not even bother to get creative or something...

 

Literally no rumors in the media this offseason or last offseason. I said attach Q to Heyward last offseason + cash and push hard to get rid of that contract. I mean I'd be willing to attach an okay prospect (+ cash) but teams are getting more reluctant to give up financial flexibility. After next season or during next season he'll have a full NTC.

 

I really don't think Theo and the Cubs' FO even broached the subject these past couple offseasons. Super disappointing and frustrating...

He’s owed 4/96 yet and has a partial no trade clause. I think it would be incredibly hard to move him. The prospects given up would be costly to save any money and we’d still likely have to throw in a decent chunk. The Angels just had to give up the 15th overall pick from last year to move and clear some of Cozart’s money and that was for 1 year and under $15 million. I think we’d be talking multiple of Hoerner, Amaya, Marquez, Adbert, Davis, etc to even be starting conversations and we’d still have to be throwing in 10s of millions or taking back a bad deal too.

 

If you did fix 2B more permanently(like getting Kieboom in a Bryant trade), I could see something like Hoerner, Heyward, and ~25 million to the Giants. Their corner OF situation is barren, they could use the prospect influx, plus they have the cash to absorb Heyward at 17M or so.

[Regular Show]

Heyward has some value and is considered a good clubhouse/veteran presence. You shouldn't compare him to Cozart IMO.

 

I think Heyward can still generate between 1-2 WAR for the next couple years and be a solid defensive replacement in the OF for some team.

 

I preferred attaching Q and adding Oscar De La Cruz or Ademan or a prospect(s) along those lines to get rid of Heyward. I wouldn't really love adding Hoerner + cash to get rid of Heyward at this point.

 

Q's value has dropped and Heyward probably doesn't have a ton of value either. He isn't a negative WAR player or a perpetually injured player. I'm sure some team would be interested if the Cubs ate enough of his contract. It's true that the upside is gone and you can't "fix" his swing now.

 

I've heard Cubs' management really likes him and he provides some leadership value in the clubhouse. Theo values that and craves a player with those qualities or something. I don't get it honestly...

[Cubswin11]

Heyward has some value and is considered a good clubhouse/veteran presence. You shouldn't compare him to Cozart IMO.

 

I think Heyward can still generate between 1-2 WAR for the next couple years and be a solid defensive replacement in the OF for some team.

 

I preferred attaching Q and adding Oscar De La Cruz or Ademan or a prospect(s) along those lines to get rid of Heyward. I wouldn't really love adding Hoerner + cash to get rid of Heyward at this point.

 

Q's value has dropped and Heyward probably doesn't have a ton of value either. He isn't a negative WAR player or a perpetually injured player. I'm sure some team would be interested if the Cubs ate enough of his contract. It's true that the upside is gone and you can't "fix" his swing now.

 

I've heard Cubs' management really likes him and he provides some leadership value in the clubhouse. Theo values that and craves a player with those qualities or something. I don't get it honestly...

I didn’t mean to compare him to Cozart who’s effectively a sunk cost, Heyward is better and has value but the prospect cost to move money was pretty steep on a deal with less $$. Even if we ate half the deal a team still is taking on $40+ mil. I agree he’s basically the player you said, defense sub, strong side platoon 1-2 win player but why would a team pay $40 mil for that when they could just sign a Jarrod Dyson, Pillar, etc type that’s available every offseason for a cheap 1 year deal? I get they’re also “buying” prospects as well and that’s all part of it but I think the prospects required to even lose half his money wouldn’t be worth giving up, I hope I’m wrong and it wouldn’t take as much. And yeah agree on the leadership thing, they seem to hold him in high regard there and it seems like Theo really values that for reasons...

[Cubswin11]

Brewers signed Smoak, solid move for them at 1B...Still think the Cubs are better and maybe not even that close, but I'm still starting to get Rays/A's vibes from that org

Thames was worth 2 wins last year, Smoak hasn’t been worth 2 wins the last two years combined. They’ve gotten pretty clearly worse replacing Moustakas, Grandal, Thames and whatever else on offense with Smoak, Sogard, Garcia, Urias and Healy and whatever that catcher is they added.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Cubswin11

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Smoak had a worse wOBA than Heyward last year

[squally1313]

I have no idea if any of this is accurate, but assuming it is, I found it pretty informative and pretty depressing on the motivations for the Cubs dropping payroll in 2020...though I guess the silver lining is that this article makes it seem like it would just be a one year dip.

 

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2019/12/19/why-the-chicago-cubs-are-likely-working-to-get-back-under-the-luxury-tax-in-2020/

 

No, this still does not mean we should trade Kris Bryant.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I have no idea if any of this is accurate, but assuming it is, I found it pretty informative and pretty depressing on the motivations for the Cubs dropping payroll in 2020...though I guess the silver lining is that this article makes it seem like it would just be a one year dip.

 

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2019/12/19/why-the-chicago-cubs-are-likely-working-to-get-back-under-the-luxury-tax-in-2020/

 

No, this still does not mean we should trade Kris Bryant.

 

The tl;dr is that going over the tax for the 2nd straight year is more like a ~25 million cost than a ~5 million cost, and doing so for a 3rd straight year is upwards of 50 million.

[squally1313]

I have no idea if any of this is accurate, but assuming it is, I found it pretty informative and pretty depressing on the motivations for the Cubs dropping payroll in 2020...though I guess the silver lining is that this article makes it seem like it would just be a one year dip.

 

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2019/12/19/why-the-chicago-cubs-are-likely-working-to-get-back-under-the-luxury-tax-in-2020/

 

No, this still does not mean we should trade Kris Bryant.

 

The tl;dr is that going over the tax for the 2nd straight year is more like a ~25 million cost than a ~5 million cost, and doing so for a 3rd straight year is upwards of 50 million.

 

"Putting it another way: The system in place makes it much cheaper for the Cubs to have a $207 million payroll in 2020 and then a $250 million payroll in 2021 than to have a $209 million payroll in 2020 and then a $211 million payroll in 2021. It’s an absurd extension of the way these penalties are structured, but it’s true."

[Cubswin11]

I have no idea if any of this is accurate, but assuming it is, I found it pretty informative and pretty depressing on the motivations for the Cubs dropping payroll in 2020...though I guess the silver lining is that this article makes it seem like it would just be a one year dip.

 

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2019/12/19/why-the-chicago-cubs-are-likely-working-to-get-back-under-the-luxury-tax-in-2020/

 

No, this still does not mean we should trade Kris Bryant.

 

The tl;dr is that going over the tax for the 2nd straight year is more like a ~25 million cost than a ~5 million cost, and doing so for a 3rd straight year is upwards of 50 million.

I just got done reading that, definitely wasn’t aware the penalties could be that costly with those other rules. But as we’ve said if the goal is simply to get under, well we’re fucked this year but it still shouldn’t mean trading Bryant. Trade Q, Chatwood or even Schwarber.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sounds like this thread should be rocketing up the charts:

 

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2624

[Bryants Disco Ball]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

 

$300 million? $400 million?

[Andy]

I have no idea if any of this is accurate, but assuming it is, I found it pretty informative and pretty depressing on the motivations for the Cubs dropping payroll in 2020...though I guess the silver lining is that this article makes it seem like it would just be a one year dip.

 

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2019/12/19/why-the-chicago-cubs-are-likely-working-to-get-back-under-the-luxury-tax-in-2020/

 

No, this still does not mean we should trade Kris Bryant.

 

The tl;dr is that going over the tax for the 2nd straight year is more like a ~25 million cost than a ~5 million cost, and doing so for a 3rd straight year is upwards of 50 million.

 

"Putting it another way: The system in place makes it much cheaper for the Cubs to have a $207 million payroll in 2020 and then a $250 million payroll in 2021 than to have a $209 million payroll in 2020 and then a $211 million payroll in 2021. It’s an absurd extension of the way these penalties are structured, but it’s true."

Of course, the level of faith I have in the Ricketts actually consenting to go back over the luxury tax in 2021 (if this cockamamie scheme of theirs pays off in the first place) is basically horsefeathering zero.

[UMFan83]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

 

$300 million? $400 million?

 

As much as it takes

[Andy]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

 

$300 million? $400 million?

I can't speak for everyone here, but I would assume most don't have a particular number in mind. The general idea, though (certainly my idea), is that some of the stuff that's been tossed around in order to get below whatever payroll ceiling the Ricketts have in mind, during a clear window of contention that you can't automatically assume will be repeated, is really really stupid. I understand not paying through the nose for Cole or Rendon, but there's no real reason the Cubs should be basically ignoring the possibility of signing anybody at all absent cost-slashing moves that will hurt the on-field product.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

 

$300 million? $400 million?

 

I would guess when this number is closer to zero than 9 digits.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Deeg]

The contortions Brett is willing to go through to be a franchise apologist never fail to amaze me. You sometimes wonder if he literally is on the take.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What if we took a few years off competing, got our payroll down, but in doing so we focused on the farm system and the organization as a whole, so we could have a pipeline of young talent that will mature into prime age as Cubs. Then we never have to rebuild again. We could sustain our success.

[Cubswin11]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

 

$300 million? $400 million?

250-300 should be more than doable during a contention window for them, imo, with the info we have on what we think they make. Obviously they could and can spend more but talking about where they could go in an individual season and still not lose money that seems like the range.