2019-20 Offseason Rumors/General Chit-Chat

[Cubswin11]

While I have my own issues with the post, I appreciate the time you put into it. The issue from a Cubs perspective is that the idea seems to go against Theo's main strategy since he got here, which is that young hitting prospects give you a ton of surplus value, whereas pitching prospects are a crapshoot and most of them probably break anyways, so just pay for them when they establish themselves. I can't see that entirely flipping with a trade like this.

I guess the reason for flipping or pivoting would be the lack of ANY development of pitching to date. I’m sure it was in the plan that by this point they’d have a real internal option or two for a SP role and some bullpen roles. The lack of that may have changed the equation a bit with needing so much pitching next year that he had to go against his core beliefs/how he would ideally prefer to build. With all the pitching holes needing to be filled next year it’s pretty hard to expect to really contend with internal options and the FA options and doing no adds through trade. That’s at least my stab at it as a reason why they’d suddenly pivot off of how they seemingly prefer to build things.

 

My preference would be to just keep KB this year and try and maximize things but I can at least get the sentiment of the other idea here.

[squally1313]

I think the part no one wants to really focus on is that, given the current roster and farm system, there's really nothing you can do now where you could confidently point to 2021 and beyond and say that we'd be contenders. I hope otherwise, but I think it's looking like an inevitability after what would hopefully be 7 years of playoff contention and a clear lack of development at the minor league level.

[CubsWin]

While I have my own issues with the post, I appreciate the time you put into it. The issue from a Cubs perspective is that the idea seems to go against Theo's main strategy since he got here, which is that young hitting prospects give you a ton of surplus value, whereas pitching prospects are a crapshoot and most of them probably break anyways, so just pay for them when they establish themselves. I can't see that entirely flipping with a trade like this.

I feel you, but they're kind of doing that here, aren't they? They drafted hitter and he got really good. Now they're trading him for a mix of major league pitching a top 40 prospect who is AAA and something else (whatever the Braves agree to or the Cubs prefer). Pitching prospects at the lower levels are a lot more of a crapshoot. Here we have the possibility of both major league ready and soon to be major league ready.

 

If they'd had more success at drafting and developing their own pitching, they wouldn't have to trade for it or spend big dollars to get it from guys in their 30s, but they didn't. The choices that face them now are handing out more big contracts after this season for guys who are 29-33, go dumpster diving, hope for the best and risk having a crappy rotation 3-5 while having a really good line-up, or lessen your chances this coming season to retool with a good, young rotation with a high ceiling AND have the money to sign Betts or Springer.

 

Going the FA agent route is a viable option. But I think going the trading route is just as viable, maybe even better. It's above my paygrade to say for sure.

[Cubswin11]

I think the part no one wants to really focus on is that, given the current roster and farm system, there's really nothing you can do now where you could confidently point to 2021 and beyond and say that we'd be contenders. I hope otherwise, but I think it's looking like an inevitability after what would hopefully be 7 years of playoff contention and a clear lack of development at the minor league level.

That’s where I’m at, you at least can see how it works this year if you keep the core and move some margins around. Next year could be tough to really contend regardless if you keep the core or do trades this year with the pitching needs. Trading KB punts this year, effectively, and then leaves next year as a pretty big roll of the dice that one (or more) of these young pitching prospect is actually good and turns out and you’re able to add Mookie to be able to contend.

[CubsWin]

While I have my own issues with the post, I appreciate the time you put into it. The issue from a Cubs perspective is that the idea seems to go against Theo's main strategy since he got here, which is that young hitting prospects give you a ton of surplus value, whereas pitching prospects are a crapshoot and most of them probably break anyways, so just pay for them when they establish themselves. I can't see that entirely flipping with a trade like this.

I guess the reason for flipping or pivoting would be the lack of ANY development of pitching to date. I’m sure it was in the plan that by this point they’d have a real internal option or two for a SP role and some bullpen roles. The lack of that may have changed the equation a bit with needing so much pitching next year that he had to go against his core beliefs/how he would ideally prefer to build. With all the pitching holes needing to be filled next year it’s pretty hard to expect to really contend with internal options and the FA options and doing no adds through trade. That’s at least my stab at it as a reason why they’d suddenly pivot off of how they seemingly prefer to build things.

 

My preference would be to just keep KB this year and try and maximize things but I can at least get the sentiment of the other idea here.

I also like the idea of replacing Bryant's production at similar contractual cost one year later by signing Betts while also having acquired good, young arms and a good CFer.

[Cubswin11]

While I have my own issues with the post, I appreciate the time you put into it. The issue from a Cubs perspective is that the idea seems to go against Theo's main strategy since he got here, which is that young hitting prospects give you a ton of surplus value, whereas pitching prospects are a crapshoot and most of them probably break anyways, so just pay for them when they establish themselves. I can't see that entirely flipping with a trade like this.

I guess the reason for flipping or pivoting would be the lack of ANY development of pitching to date. I’m sure it was in the plan that by this point they’d have a real internal option or two for a SP role and some bullpen roles. The lack of that may have changed the equation a bit with needing so much pitching next year that he had to go against his core beliefs/how he would ideally prefer to build. With all the pitching holes needing to be filled next year it’s pretty hard to expect to really contend with internal options and the FA options and doing no adds through trade. That’s at least my stab at it as a reason why they’d suddenly pivot off of how they seemingly prefer to build things.

 

My preference would be to just keep KB this year and try and maximize things but I can at least get the sentiment of the other idea here.

I also like the idea of replacing Bryant's production at similar contractual cost one year later by signing Betts while also having acquired good, young arms and a good CFer.

The Betts thing is huge to me, it’s impossible for us to know. But if doing whatever back checking they can do Theo and Co. feel like they can go all out to get him and he would come here that would make me feel a whole better with trading KB if we could feel reasonably certain Mookie is all part of this equation.

[CubsWin]

I think the part no one wants to really focus on is that, given the current roster and farm system, there's really nothing you can do now where you could confidently point to 2021 and beyond and say that we'd be contenders. I hope otherwise, but I think it's looking like an inevitability after what would hopefully be 7 years of playoff contention and a clear lack of development at the minor league level.

That’s where I’m at, you at least can see how it works this year if you keep the core and move some margins around. Next year could be tough to really contend regardless if you keep the core or do trades this year with the pitching needs. Trading KB punts this year, effectively, and then leaves next year as a pretty big roll of the dice that one (or more) of these young pitching prospect is actually good and turns out and you’re able to add Mookie to be able to contend.

Fletcher's pretty good. He and Caratini is definitely less than Bryant and Contreras, but I don't see the Cubs being completely out of the running in the NL Central in 2020.

 

Anyway, it's just one of many trade possibilities that would result in the same thing, lessen your chances in 2020 and reset your roster and payroll for possible dominance the next season and beyond.

 

There's nothing wrong with just keeping it going for 2 more seasons though...

[CubsWin]

I guess the reason for flipping or pivoting would be the lack of ANY development of pitching to date. I’m sure it was in the plan that by this point they’d have a real internal option or two for a SP role and some bullpen roles. The lack of that may have changed the equation a bit with needing so much pitching next year that he had to go against his core beliefs/how he would ideally prefer to build. With all the pitching holes needing to be filled next year it’s pretty hard to expect to really contend with internal options and the FA options and doing no adds through trade. That’s at least my stab at it as a reason why they’d suddenly pivot off of how they seemingly prefer to build things.

 

My preference would be to just keep KB this year and try and maximize things but I can at least get the sentiment of the other idea here.

I also like the idea of replacing Bryant's production at similar contractual cost one year later by signing Betts while also having acquired good, young arms and a good CFer.

The Betts thing is huge to me, it’s impossible for us to know. But if doing whatever back checking they can do Theo and Co. feel like they can go all out to get him and he would come here that would make me feel a whole better with trading KB if we could feel reasonably certain Mookie is all part of this equation.

Yeah, that would have to be part of the calculation. Theo drafted him, but they didn't have much time together in the organization. One thing is certain, though, they could outbid anybody for his services if they wanted to.

[Deeg]

Remember when we were excusing inexplicable moves because the Cubs were obviously positioning themselves to sign Bryce Harper?

[ConstableRabbit]

While I have my own issues with the post, I appreciate the time you put into it. The issue from a Cubs perspective is that the idea seems to go against Theo's main strategy since he got here, which is that young hitting prospects give you a ton of surplus value, whereas pitching prospects are a crapshoot and most of them probably break anyways, so just pay for them when they establish themselves. I can't see that entirely flipping with a trade like this.

I guess the reason for flipping or pivoting would be the lack of ANY development of pitching to date. I’m sure it was in the plan that by this point they’d have a real internal option or two for a SP role and some bullpen roles. The lack of that may have changed the equation a bit with needing so much pitching next year that he had to go against his core beliefs/how he would ideally prefer to build. With all the pitching holes needing to be filled next year it’s pretty hard to expect to really contend with internal options and the FA options and doing no adds through trade. That’s at least my stab at it as a reason why they’d suddenly pivot off of how they seemingly prefer to build things.

 

My preference would be to just keep KB this year and try and maximize things but I can at least get the sentiment of the other idea here.

I also like the idea of replacing Bryant's production at similar contractual cost one year later by signing Betts while also having acquired good, young arms and a good CFer.

Betts would be an improvement on Bryant imo. And I love Bryant.

[CubsWin]

Remember when we were excusing inexplicable moves because the Cubs were obviously positioning themselves to sign Bryce Harper?

Yeah, they might not get him. They could outbid everybody and still not get him. They could then go after Springer if they wanted and outbid everybody and not get him either. But none of that would make this an "inexplicable move" because they still have to address the 2021 pitching situation. Trading Bryant and Contreras isn't the only way to do that, but it is a viable way that has a ton of upside and a good floor.

[Deeg]

Remember when we were excusing inexplicable moves because the Cubs were obviously positioning themselves to sign Bryce Harper?

Yeah, they might not get him. They could outbid everybody and still not get him. They could then go after Springer if they wanted and outbid everybody and not get him either. But none of that would make this an "inexplicable move" because they still have to address the 2021 pitching situation. Trading Bryant and Contreras isn't the only way to do that, but it is a viable way that has a ton of upside and a good floor.

 

I'm not disputing that there are realistic, defensible scenarios where trading Bryant and/or Contreras makes sense. I just think it's folly to make any assumptions about the Cubs making moves because of some hypothetical multi-dimensional chess plan to sign a superstar at some point in the future. Much more likely that they're just being cheap.

[CubsWin]

Remember when we were excusing inexplicable moves because the Cubs were obviously positioning themselves to sign Bryce Harper?

Yeah, they might not get him. They could outbid everybody and still not get him. They could then go after Springer if they wanted and outbid everybody and not get him either. But none of that would make this an "inexplicable move" because they still have to address the 2021 pitching situation. Trading Bryant and Contreras isn't the only way to do that, but it is a viable way that has a ton of upside and a good floor.

 

I'm not disputing that there are realistic, defensible scenarios where trading Bryant and/or Contreras makes sense.

We're on the same page there. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

Much more likely that they're just being cheap.

This year, yeah, I think for some reason I don't yet understand it seems like they want to stay under the CBT.

 

I just think it's folly to make any assumptions about the Cubs making moves because of some hypothetical multi-dimensional chess plan to sign a superstar at some point in the future.

But the immediate goal isn't to do all that to sign Betts. The immediate goal is to address the 2021 rotation in a smart way that sets themselves up with the financial flexibity to make moves after 2020. If they get a big fish all the better.

 

It's either that or pay big bucks on 29-33 year old arms on multi-year deals/dumpster dive and hope to catch lightning in a bottle. Both are viable options, but so is the trade scenario. And that was the point I was out to make.

[squally1313]

I think the part no one wants to really focus on is that, given the current roster and farm system, there's really nothing you can do now where you could confidently point to 2021 and beyond and say that we'd be contenders. I hope otherwise, but I think it's looking like an inevitability after what would hopefully be 7 years of playoff contention and a clear lack of development at the minor league level.

That’s where I’m at, you at least can see how it works this year if you keep the core and move some margins around. Next year could be tough to really contend regardless if you keep the core or do trades this year with the pitching needs. Trading KB punts this year, effectively, and then leaves next year as a pretty big roll of the dice that one (or more) of these young pitching prospect is actually good and turns out and you’re able to add Mookie to be able to contend.

I’m going to let them fill that last slot of the rotation before I sound all the alarms on 2021. Hopefully they find someone that can project out past this year to join Yu and Kyle. From there, you’re replacing Lester and Q. I think people seeing a 2020 contender out of the Cubs aren’t expecting much from Lester anyways, so don’t think it would change much to keep that slot as status quo. Q is a weird case, I’ve been a big defender around here, but I think there’s also a fairly large contingent that want to trade him because they think he’s overpriced at $12m.

 

I know the FA market next year is thin. But you’re looking at $35-40m in salary coming off the books between Lester, Q, and Chatwood. Going to be hard to justify banking that money, but who knows, they’ve proved me wrong before.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, if you read what I wrote, I'm saying that some others in this thread are lacking in imagination, not that they haven't been realistic.

 

Figment, is that you?

 

[Bertz]

I think the part no one wants to really focus on is that, given the current roster and farm system, there's really nothing you can do now where you could confidently point to 2021 and beyond and say that we'd be contenders. I hope otherwise, but I think it's looking like an inevitability after what would hopefully be 7 years of playoff contention and a clear lack of development at the minor league level.

That’s where I’m at, you at least can see how it works this year if you keep the core and move some margins around. Next year could be tough to really contend regardless if you keep the core or do trades this year with the pitching needs. Trading KB punts this year, effectively, and then leaves next year as a pretty big roll of the dice that one (or more) of these young pitching prospect is actually good and turns out and you’re able to add Mookie to be able to contend.

I’m going to let them fill that last slot of the rotation before I sound all the alarms on 2021. Hopefully they find someone that can project out past this year to join Yu and Kyle. From there, you’re replacing Lester and Q. I think people seeing a 2020 contender out of the Cubs aren’t expecting much from Lester anyways, so don’t think it would change much to keep that slot as status quo. Q is a weird case, I’ve been a big defender around here, but I think there’s also a fairly large contingent that want to trade him because they think he’s overpriced at $12m.

 

I know the FA market next year is thin. But you’re looking at $35-40m in salary coming off the books between Lester, Q, and Chatwood. Going to be hard to justify banking that money, but who knows, they’ve proved me wrong before.

 

Weirdly I think Q's fate is tied to Javy. If the team is in line with Javy on an extension, they basically have to trade Q to make the money work (assuming they're keeping to the $208 "cap"). If not, it's more of a matter of being opportunistic.

 

Lester probably depends more on his perfromance than outside factors IMO. He only counts $15M against the "cap" next year. And with at least one rotation spot to fill I think they keep him if he still projects well.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Not sure why I'm posting this but I can't help myself:

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[squally1313]

That’s where I’m at, you at least can see how it works this year if you keep the core and move some margins around. Next year could be tough to really contend regardless if you keep the core or do trades this year with the pitching needs. Trading KB punts this year, effectively, and then leaves next year as a pretty big roll of the dice that one (or more) of these young pitching prospect is actually good and turns out and you’re able to add Mookie to be able to contend.

I’m going to let them fill that last slot of the rotation before I sound all the alarms on 2021. Hopefully they find someone that can project out past this year to join Yu and Kyle. From there, you’re replacing Lester and Q. I think people seeing a 2020 contender out of the Cubs aren’t expecting much from Lester anyways, so don’t think it would change much to keep that slot as status quo. Q is a weird case, I’ve been a big defender around here, but I think there’s also a fairly large contingent that want to trade him because they think he’s overpriced at $12m.

 

I know the FA market next year is thin. But you’re looking at $35-40m in salary coming off the books between Lester, Q, and Chatwood. Going to be hard to justify banking that money, but who knows, they’ve proved me wrong before.

 

Weirdly I think Q's fate is tied to Javy. If the team is in line with Javy on an extension, they basically have to trade Q to make the money work (assuming they're keeping to the $208 "cap"). If not, it's more of a matter of being opportunistic.

 

Lester probably depends more on his perfromance than outside factors IMO. He only counts $15M against the "cap" next year. And with at least one rotation spot to fill I think they keep him if he still projects well.

 

Eh, Q is making so little money that I don't really see that from a purely financial standpoint. I mean, Chatwood is making more than he is in 2020. Obviously the return is less, but you could probably find someone to take that contract, even if you ended up having to attach a prospect with it. Even someone like Kimbrel, if they really need to make the money work.

 

For Lester, he's projected for 2 fWAR in 2020. Probably somewhere around 1.5 in 2021. If we can't find someone out of the Rea, Mills, Cotton, etc group to give us something like that for 2021 as a 5th starter, we're probably screwed anyways.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So if I'm making a realistic template for the offseason at this point, these things would come into focus:

 

- Ownership went full cartoon villain and has mandated getting under the first tax line, the current roster is ~2 million over

- The market for dumping contracts is nonexistent, I can't find the tweet but there were some quotes talking about how teams are valuing flexibility above all else

- The front office clearly likes Castellanos a lot, and it appears they like Shogo too

- Trading Bryant is generally favored over tap dancing with the tax line across multiple other moves

 

If you want the best case from that mess, then IMO you do something like:

 

- Trade Bryant for a package that includes an MLB ready position player with star potential. Of the known suitors this is basically only Robles and Kieboom since Albies and Acuna aren't getting traded, the Angels signed Rendon, and the Rangers are a tire fire. I guess the Twins are technically on the periphery of the 3B market but there's not much of a match there either. We really do not want Donaldson on the Nationals.

 

- Trade Contreras for your 5 starter and additional arms.

 

- If you sign Castellanos, trade Schwarber for additional pitching help or possibly infield help depending on how the other deals play out.

 

I can't emphasize enough how angry this offseason would make me(to oversimplify, you're choosing to trade Bryant to make room for Castellanos), but if you're able to add Kieboom, Suero, Castellanos, Shogo, Castro, and the pitching haul from Bryant+Contreras+Schwarber, you can at least squint and see a way to be a similar caliber team as last year, and with significant pitching quality added for 2021+ that might actually give you room to maneuver next year if the nonsense financial restrictions continue.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The market just isn’t there for that kind of Bryant trade. Nobody wants to give up MLB ready talent.

[Bertz]

So if I'm making a realistic template for the offseason at this point, these things would come into focus:

 

- Ownership went full cartoon villain and has mandated getting under the first tax line, the current roster is ~2 million over

- The market for dumping contracts is nonexistent, I can't find the tweet but there were some quotes talking about how teams are valuing flexibility above all else

- The front office clearly likes Castellanos a lot, and it appears they like Shogo too

- Trading Bryant is generally favored over tap dancing with the tax line across multiple other moves

 

If you want the best case from that mess, then IMO you do something like:

 

- Trade Bryant for a package that includes an MLB ready position player with star potential. Of the known suitors this is basically only Robles and Kieboom since Albies and Acuna aren't getting traded, the Angels signed Rendon, and the Rangers are a tire fire. I guess the Twins are technically on the periphery of the 3B market but there's not much of a match there either. We really do not want Donaldson on the Nationals.

 

- Trade Contreras for your 5 starter and additional arms.

 

- If you sign Castellanos, trade Schwarber for additional pitching help or possibly infield help depending on how the other deals play out.

 

I can't emphasize enough how angry this offseason would make me(to oversimplify, you're choosing to trade Bryant to make room for Castellanos), but if you're able to add Kieboom, Suero, Castellanos, Shogo, Castro, and the pitching haul from Bryant+Contreras+Schwarber, you can at least squint and see a way to be a similar caliber team as last year, and with significant pitching quality added for 2021+ that might actually give you room to maneuver next year if the nonsense financial restrictions continue.

 

This is the quote about moving money. From an Eno Sarris article about what the public doesn't understand about working in a FO:

 

“It’s impossible to move bad contracts,” one front-office executive said, before agreeing that it would be best to be skeptical about rumors involving salary dumps. “Those trades are so hard because everyone wants flexibility.”

 

When we beat our heads against the wall on a trade, there’s often a budgetary reason for some aspect of that trade that we don’t know about. Or a roster construction reason.

 

Pretty similarly, this is what I expect as a rough outline for the rest of the offseason:

 

- Bryant, Contreras, Q out, young pitching and at least one high upside near the majors position player in

- Javy extended

- ~$15M spread across 3-4 bench guys

- Add an Alex Wood/Colin McHugh type

 

There's variations obviously, but I think that's the rough shape. I think you're right that Castellanos is in if Schwarber gets traded, and like I said a few posts up I think Javy and Q are tied to each other as well.

[Sammy Sofa]

[expletive], it's ridiculous how much they shot themselves in the foot by completely breaking Heyward.

[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.

[Andy]

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.

If we could manage to win 2 more titles like the Blackhawks did, I could probably live with that. (Of course, that's likely not what's going to happen.)

[Bertz]

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.