Potential Kris Bryant trade thread

[Bull]

 

Yes....Ricketts wants the Cubs underneath the lux tax. That's what is driving this. Very frustrating.

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.

Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.

Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

 

oh [expletive]. they are greedy, self serving old white folk. nothing more to see then that

[Andy]

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.

Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

[squally1313]

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

[biittner77]

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

 

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

[squally1313]

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

 

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

[champaignchris]

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

 

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

 

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

 

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

[CubinNY]

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.

Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

The Ricketts family was one of the prime proponents of putting teeth into the luxury tax penalties. Being an MLB owner isn't the same thing as being in a fraternity.

[Andy]

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

 

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

Collusion not to go over the luxury tax =/= collusion to not pay anyone at all.

[Bull]

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

 

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

 

Provided it doesn't cause them to go over the luxury tax more than two years in a row.

[Bull]

 

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

 

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

 

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

 

And, if I remember correctly it will be their second year in a row. Red Sox on pace to go over three years in a row. These are the only two teams to exceed it more than one year running.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

 

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

 

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

 

And, if I remember correctly it will be their second year in a row. Red Sox on pace to go over three years in a row. These are the only two teams to exceed it more than one year running.

Have the Dodgers or Giants gone over back to back or three times in recent history?

[Bull]

 

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

 

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

 

And, if I remember correctly it will be their second year in a row. Red Sox on pace to go over three years in a row. These are the only two teams to exceed it more than one year running.

Have the Dodgers or Giants gone over back to back or three times in recent history?

 

Someone else will know better than me I'm sure, but I didn't think so.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You’re not getting 20 years of service time worth of near-ready, top-40 prospects for two years of Kris Bryant.

[KingCubsFan]

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

The Ricketts family was one of the prime proponents of putting teeth into the luxury tax penalties. Being an MLB owner isn't the same thing as being in a fraternity.

Link?

[KingCubsFan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

Anderson, Wright and Waters would be a good return. Not a fan of Riley.

[toonsterwu]

Oy, I just don't love the Braves prospects as much as others, I guess. I think out of Pache/Waters, one of them will likely be a solid MLB OF, but I don't love either guy. I'm not that huge on Austin Riley. Honestly, the positional guy I really sort of like in that system is Braden Shewmake.

 

The pitchers are obviously talented, but I'm still a little bit wary of Ian Anderson. Tbh ... I still sort of like Kyle Muller. Mid-90's lefties are hard to find, but that command is a bit concerning.

 

It's an interesting concept. It's probably as good a deal as you could get. Hard to see many teams topping that. Still ... honestly, any Bryant deal needs to be about talent and not position. Hard for me to see the Braves offering up both Wright and Anderson ... I could easily see them fork over Waters and Riley, but a deal of Waters/Riley/One Arm? That doesn't entice me, and quantity will only help a deal oh so much (that is, if they toss in other guys). I'd probably talk myself into accepting Waters/Anderson/Wright.

 

Still sort of hoping on Phillies desperation to compete plus the fact that there's no guarantee they can get another guy to come as a FA after Trout resigned with the whole fan base pining for him. The arms aren't as good (heck, I don't particularly love any of their arms ... Maybe Medina would be my preference, but could easily see him end up in the pen), and that might be a sticking point for this FO based on the inability to develop said arms, but wishing on Alec Bohm is far more interesting to me than the Braves guys. Braves have the ability to put together a better overall package, unless the Phillies offered up say Kingery.

 

Heck ... if the Nationals could find a way to trade for a young arm to pair with Carter Kieboom and another piece, I might even prefer that to the Braves potential packages (assuming no young MLB players are coming in Braves deal besides perhaps Riley). Dunno, the Braves guys just don't interest me as much as they probably should.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah I agree. I like Bohm, Kieboom or Robles more than anything the Braves have to offer (pitcher or position player). I just hate going so pitching centric on a return for KB, give me a little more certainty with a position player. It’s too bad there wasn’t more certainty Bohm could stick at 3B because I like his bat the most of any name we’ve heard. But since it sounds like he’s COF/1B destined I think I want Kieboom the most. If we must go down this path, that is.

 

My two preferred packages right now would be:

 

1. Kieboom or Robles then 1-3 other things (depending on rank or whatever), 2-10 or so in their system is all pitching so 1-2 of those guys then maybe another guy or two below that.

 

2. Bohm, Spencer Howard and 1-2 more guys probably in their 12-20+ org range.

[Bertz]

Yeah I agree. I like Bohm, Kieboom or Robles more than anything the Braves have to offer (pitcher or position player). I just hate going so pitching centric on a return for KB, give me a little more certainty with a position player. It’s too bad there wasn’t more certainty Bohm could stick at 3B because I like his bat the most of any name we’ve heard. But since it sounds like he’s COF/1B destined I think I want Kieboom the most. If we must go down this path, that is.

 

My two preferred packages right now would be:

 

1. Kieboom or Robles then 1-3 other things (depending on rank or whatever), 2-10 or so in their system is all pitching so 1-2 of those guys then maybe another guy or two below that.

 

2. Bohm, Spencer Howard and 1-2 more guys probably in their 12-20+ org range.

 

Yeah I think Kieboom and stuff is probably the best realistic option. That's the one where you are taking the least severe step back the next two years (hell, there's probably a ~30% chance Kieboom + $18M is better THIS year), and in this kind of deal you're generally better off taking one A+ piece than 3 B+ ones.

 

I'd feel a lot better about the Braves if Pache was part of that menu. The bat has questions (though given his age none particularly concerning), but it sounds like he's a legit +15 defender in CF. He offers a comfortable floor that none of the Braves other options do, even if I like them all individually.

[toonsterwu]

To be very clear, my preferred scenario, assuming a long term need to get cut some payroll and getting some young talent as well, is something I mentioned recently, which is trading Darvish, who I believe, with the remaining market left, might be able to get enough interest where a team would take on the money and perhaps even offer some interesting talent. That should clear up enough space that the pressure to trade Bryant isn't there, and you can wait for a monster offer or take a run and hope for a little luck and revisit trading him at the deadline.

 

None of the rumored deals are anywhere interesting when compared to the productivity that Bryant would offer, but it's more making the best of a bad situation.

 

______

 

I actually don't love Kieboom, but he should be a solid enough regular. All that said, Nationals Plan A is obviously Donaldson. Even if they miss on him, they'd probably need to figure out a 2nd base situation to be willing to trade Kieboom away, as Kieboom is penciled in as a starter at one spot next year for them already. Considering their recent history with Boras (keeping Stras but letting Harper/Rendon go), I don't know if they'd willingly go down the aisle again with another impending Boras FA unless the deal was too good for them to pass up. The problem with any Nationals trade, even in the hypothetical, is that after Kieboom (again, don't see them moving Robles at all, Kieboom, while unlikely, seems not that ridiculous that it can't be considered), it's pretty weak in the system, particularly arm side, unless you are really betting on development and upside with a guy like Jackson Rutledge. I'd love a lottery ticket gamble on Jeremy de la Rosa, though. I'm quite fascinated with how enamored the Nationals seem to be of him.

 

______

 

I know the Phillies are selling Spencer Howard hard, and he is coming off a good year. Heck, if I buy what the Phillies are selling, then he might be a better arm than anything the Braves would likely offer. I just don't know if I'm there on Howard yet. Still, mechanics look alright in some videos so if he really shows 2-3 consistent plus pitches, as the Phillies claim ...

[toonsterwu]

Honestly, this might not be a fair comparison, but for some reason, I sort of think Trey McNutt with Spencer Howard. A guy that flashed raw upside (IIRC, there were some positive reports on McNutt's secondaries in A ball, enough so that IIRC, there was some debate here about Archer vs. McNutt).

Physically, McNutt was a much bigger dude, but Howard has a better repetoire. I guess, short of it is, I want to see more exposure at the upper levels before I'm convinced.

 

Total side note - didn't realize McNutt made it back to affiliated ball, AA/AAA with the A's. Good for him.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Bertz]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

FWIW Jim Bowden predicted that a Bryant to the Nats deal would look like Carter Kieboom, Jackson Ruttledge (2019 First Round Pick), and Tim Cate (2018 2nd Round Pick). Now Bowden is very much a clown (he thinks the trade will happen in March?!?), but he can be good at correctly gauging what things actually cost. Like his FA predictions are usually the best in terms of dollars. But again, he's a moron, so grain of salt and all that.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

FWIW Jim Bowden predicted that a Bryant to the Nats deal would look like Carter Kieboom, Jackson Ruttledge (2019 First Round Pick), and Tim Cate (2018 2nd Round Pick). Now Bowden is very much a clown (he thinks the trade will happen in March?!?), but he can be good at correctly gauging what things actually cost. Like his FA predictions are usually the best in terms of dollars. But again, he's a moron, so grain of salt and all that.

I'm salty enough over all of this trade BS that a grain ain't gunna cut it.