Potential Kris Bryant trade thread

[squally1313]

Can we discuss this logically yet or is the knee jerk hysteria still going?

Yes, please.

 

The idea that a franchise almost literally swimming in its own cash would need to trade an extremely productive recent MVP to improve its team (to say nothing of the idea that improving its team would be virtually impossible under that scenario), rather than just going and signing a few players to do so, is horsefeathering bat horsefeathers crazy and anyone who subscribes to that idea out of hand is basically too stupid for any insult to be effective.

 

I think that's pretty logical.

Guess not. Carry on.

 

No, no...go on. Please.

[sneakypower]

just reminiscing about a familiar memory

 

Both Chicago general manager Larry Himes and Maddux's agent, Scott Boras, accused the other of failing to negotiate in good faith. The Cubs eventually decided to pursue other free agents, including José Guzmán, Dan Plesac, and Candy Maldonado. After seven seasons in Chicago, Maddux signed a five-year, $28 million deal with the Atlanta Braves.

[Regular Show]

just reminiscing about a familiar memory

 

Both Chicago general manager Larry Himes and Maddux's agent, Scott Boras, accused the other of failing to negotiate in good faith. The Cubs eventually decided to pursue other free agents, including José Guzmán, Dan Plesac, and Candy Maldonado. After seven seasons in Chicago, Maddux signed a five-year, $28 million deal with the Atlanta Braves.

 

Are you trying to make an analogy between what the Cubs (and Theo) are doing right now regarding KB vs. what Larry Himes and the Cubs did almost 30 years ago when Maddux became a FA?

 

I don't think they're similar scenarios...

[sneakypower]

they're unreluctantly parting ways with a HOF talent in his prime with designs on replacing the production with a package of spare parts

[SouthSideRyan]

Plus if we didn’t lose so much by letting Maddux walk we never would’ve been able to get Bryant

[cl smooth]

bryant for arenado straight up

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[David]

[Splendid Splinter]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

[jersey cubs fan]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

I don't believe I've ever heard a "Maddux wasn't that good on the Cubs" take before.

 

He was young and consistently good and getting better in the process. Everybody thought he'd have an amazing career. Nobody predicted he'd pitch for 16 more seasons, but he was already well on pace for greatness and worth every penny.

[David]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

 

Maddux was coming off 3 seasons of 5.1, 5.8, and 7 fWAR when he hit free agency at age 26. And, since he wasn't a high strikeout guy, I'll throw in that his bWAR in 92 was a Trout-ian 9.1.

 

What really made letting him walk after 92 extra egregious, though, was the fact that he came back to the Cubs at the end, telling them he wanted to stay if they'd match his offer, and Himes was like, "Nah, we're good with Dan Plesac and Jose Guzman."

[Splendid Splinter]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

I don't believe I've ever heard a "Maddux wasn't that good on the Cubs" take before.

 

He was young and consistently good and getting better in the process. Everybody thought he'd have an amazing career. Nobody predicted he'd pitch for 16 more seasons, but he was already well on pace for greatness and worth every penny.

 

I was only 7-8 at that time and didn't really get into the Cubs until a couple years later after he left so I had no idea on how he was viewed as a Cubs and was curious. Thanks.

[Cubswin11]

bryant for arenado straight up

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

Let’s get nuts

 

Angels get: KB, Q and Gray

Rockies get: Adell, Amaya, another Angel prospect or two, Bote, Underwood, Chatwood

Cubs get: Arenado, Estevez, Canning and Rockies pay ~$3 mil a year of the Arenado deal.

 

Saves us money, actually and we get a pitching prospect and replace KBs production.

[Splendid Splinter]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

 

Maddux was coming off 3 seasons of 5.1, 5.8, and 7 fWAR when he hit free agency at age 26. And, since he wasn't a high strikeout guy, I'll throw in that his bWAR in 92 was a Trout-ian 9.1.

 

What really made letting him walk after 92 extra egregious, though, was the fact that he came back to the Cubs at the end, telling them he wanted to stay if they'd match his offer, and Himes was like, "Nah, we're good with Dan Plesac and Jose Guzman."

 

Oh I agree it was insane what Himes did and should've kept Maddux. I know how good he really was with the advanced metrics as a Cubs, but those stats weren't available or didn't exist back then like they are now so you can really compare or evaluate players these days.

 

I was more curious on how he viewed in those days since all you went by were the numbers/stats which doesn't tell the whole story as we all know. If people (scouts/reporters/players/etc) were saying like what jersey said, then yeah it looked as bad as it did. I was just curious if anybody threw out the whole "contract year", "he wasn't as good as what '92 suggested", etc like I was saying at the end of my post.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs letting Maddux walk was my first true heartbreak as a Cubs fan. After a horsefeathering Cy Young year, no less. I couldn't even process it when my dad said he had signed with the Braves; beyond me being an idiot kid, it just didn't make any kind of sense on any level.

[David]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

 

Maddux was coming off 3 seasons of 5.1, 5.8, and 7 fWAR when he hit free agency at age 26. And, since he wasn't a high strikeout guy, I'll throw in that his bWAR in 92 was a Trout-ian 9.1.

 

What really made letting him walk after 92 extra egregious, though, was the fact that he came back to the Cubs at the end, telling them he wanted to stay if they'd match his offer, and Himes was like, "Nah, we're good with Dan Plesac and Jose Guzman."

 

Oh I agree it was insane what Himes did and should've kept Maddux. I know how good he really was with the advanced metrics as a Cubs, but those stats weren't available or didn't exist back then like they are now so you can really compare or evaluate players these days.

 

I was more curious on how he viewed in those days since all you went by were the numbers/stats which doesn't tell the whole story as we all know. If people (scouts/reporters/players/etc) were saying like what jersey said, then yeah it looked as bad as it did. I was just curious if anybody threw out the whole "contract year", "he wasn't as good as what '92 suggested", etc like I was saying at the end of my post.

 

Fair enough. He was coming off 18, 19, 15, 15, and 20 win seasons on mostly terrible teams... So I'm pretty sure he was viewed quite favorably.

[jersey cubs fan]

Was Maddux really being treated as HOF talent when he was a FA? I was too young that I don't remember much about he was viewed at that time.

 

Also would Maddux still have one of the greatest 6 year stretch ever as a pitcher (only behind Pedro imo) if he stayed with the Cubs? I mean he really did step it up in '92 and won a CY, but you can't assume that he would keep that going. He could've easily reverted back to what he was the previous 2 years before which is still good, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere close as great.

I don't believe I've ever heard a "Maddux wasn't that good on the Cubs" take before.

 

He was young and consistently good and getting better in the process. Everybody thought he'd have an amazing career. Nobody predicted he'd pitch for 16 more seasons, but he was already well on pace for greatness and worth every penny.

 

I was only 7-8 at that time and didn't really get into the Cubs until a couple years later after he left so I had no idea on how he was viewed as a Cubs and was curious. Thanks.

 

Grace, Sandberg and Maddux were the only good things left from the '89 season, which was the last good time to be a Cubs fan. Back then we were dumb and liked pitchers. And we all loved Maddux.

[CubinNY]

Can we discuss this logically yet or is the knee jerk hysteria still going?

Yes, please.

 

The idea that a franchise almost literally swimming in its own cash would need to trade an extremely productive recent MVP to improve its team (to say nothing of the idea that improving its team would be virtually impossible under that scenario), rather than just going and signing a few players to do so, is horsefeathering bat horsefeathers crazy and anyone who subscribes to that idea out of hand is basically too stupid for any insult to be effective.

 

I think that's pretty logical.

Guess not. Carry on.

He's not wrong.

 

The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason.

[champaignchris]

 

Maddux was coming off 3 seasons of 5.1, 5.8, and 7 fWAR when he hit free agency at age 26. And, since he wasn't a high strikeout guy, I'll throw in that his bWAR in 92 was a Trout-ian 9.1.

 

What really made letting him walk after 92 extra egregious, though, was the fact that he came back to the Cubs at the end, telling them he wanted to stay if they'd match his offer, and Himes was like, "Nah, we're good with Dan Plesac and Jose Guzman."

 

Oh I agree it was insane what Himes did and should've kept Maddux. I know how good he really was with the advanced metrics as a Cubs, but those stats weren't available or didn't exist back then like they are now so you can really compare or evaluate players these days.

 

I was more curious on how he viewed in those days since all you went by were the numbers/stats which doesn't tell the whole story as we all know. If people (scouts/reporters/players/etc) were saying like what jersey said, then yeah it looked as bad as it did. I was just curious if anybody threw out the whole "contract year", "he wasn't as good as what '92 suggested", etc like I was saying at the end of my post.

 

Fair enough. He was coming off 18, 19, 15, 15, and 20 win seasons on mostly terrible teams... So I'm pretty sure he was viewed quite favorably.

 

I was 19 years old and remember it quite clearly. Maddux was considered the best starter in the NL at the time and the Cubs’ handling of his free agency was considered an unmitigated disaster. I remember Peter Gammons reporting on it on ESPN, completely agape at what was going on.

[Tim]

Yes, please.

 

The idea that a franchise almost literally swimming in its own cash would need to trade an extremely productive recent MVP to improve its team (to say nothing of the idea that improving its team would be virtually impossible under that scenario), rather than just going and signing a few players to do so, is horsefeathering bat horsefeathers crazy and anyone who subscribes to that idea out of hand is basically too stupid for any insult to be effective.

 

I think that's pretty logical.

Guess not. Carry on.

He's not wrong.

 

The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason.

Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier.

 

If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him.

 

I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Guess not. Carry on.

He's not wrong.

 

The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason.

Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier.

 

If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him.

 

I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist.

[squally1313]

Guess not. Carry on.

He's not wrong.

 

The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason.

Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier.

 

If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him.

 

I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist.

 

This isn't a rebuttal as much as it is a genuine question, but do you think situations like that actually occur, where the Cubs would have pretty definitive insight into a presumably injury driven decline, but other teams wouldn't be aware of it?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

He's not wrong.

 

The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason.

Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier.

 

If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him.

 

I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist.

 

This isn't a rebuttal as much as it is a genuine question, but do you think situations like that actually occur, where the Cubs would have pretty definitive insight into a presumably injury driven decline, but other teams wouldn't be aware of it?

I don't think it would be a question as to if other teams were AWARE of it or not. Of course they are aware of the fact Bryant has had shoulder injuries and there is risk involved with that, and of course a physical would be a part of the deal. Its more a question of teams appraising value differently, be it due to different regression curves assigned to Bryant, competative windows, owners that are suddenly miserly, whatever.

[Post Count Padder]

I reeeaaaallllyyyyy hate the idea of trading Bryant but if the Phillies offer something ridiculous like Bohm, Howard, Kingery and one of Pivetta/Eflin/Seranthony, do you do it? There are rumblings the Phillies really want Bryant.

[Cubswin11]

I reeeaaaallllyyyyy hate the idea of trading Bryant but if the Phillies offer something ridiculous like Bohm, Howard, Kingery and one of Pivetta/Eflin/Seranthony, do you do it? There are rumblings the Phillies really want Bryant.

I probably would do that, I’d even flip out Kingery for Segura (have them pay some of Segura down or include Q or Chatwood going back).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think if you really looked at it objectively, the price for two years of Kris Byrant on the trade market is high but not exhorbitantly high.

 

But I have no interest in looking at it objectively.