2020 Offseason Thread

[CaliforniaRaisin]

^^ Yeah, if this team sucks next year then NSBB will be crickets

 

Honestly, the rebuilding years were probably the most invested I had ever been in the Cubs in my whole life. Theo had a lot to do with that, but if they blow it up and pull in some big prospects/youngsters I actually think I might be more interested than I have been the last couple of years.

 

Back then, there were minor league game threads with more posts than a week of big league game threads.

[Cubswin11]

If they don’t blow it up and try and win this year.... NT’ing Schwarbs and going with a Renfroe/Eaton LF platoon would be intriguing. Probably costs about the same as Schwarbs.

 

[Tryptamine]

Mired in mediocrity is the worst place you can be. They either need to go all in this year and accept that there's a 5 year rebuild coming or completely tear it down. They already wasted a ton of player value sending a very mediocre team onto the field in 2019.

[Backtobanks]

^^ Yeah, if this team sucks next year then NSBB will be crickets

 

Honestly, the rebuilding years were probably the most invested I had ever been in the Cubs in my whole life. Theo had a lot to do with that, but if they blow it up and pull in some big prospects/youngsters I actually think I might be more interested than I have been the last couple of years.

 

At least Theo had a track record of building a team and had an owner willing to spend when it was necessary. Hoyer has always been in the mix, but was never the guy to build a team. Also, who knows what financial commitment PTR will make in a few years.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Mired in mediocrity is the worst place you can be. They either need to go all in this year and accept that there's a 5 year rebuild coming or completely tear it down. They already wasted a ton of player value sending a very mediocre team onto the field in 2019.

 

I would find a five-year rebuild to be unacceptable. I've always said I haven't had any issue with what the Cubs owners had for a payroll in the recent past even when people wanted them to spend more........but the Cubs should be in the top 5 in MLB consistently. And they shouldn't need five years to build a good team with that type of advantage.

 

But, yes, I do realize it appears they might not be willing to have a top 5 payroll.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

They already wasted a ton of player value sending a very mediocre team onto the field in 2019.

 

To quote you again, this is the only really huge screwup Theo had in my eyes. Last offseason was the time to unload some of these guys for legit prospects and he failed to do it and it can't be done now. Huge missed opportunity.

[squally1313]

Mired in mediocrity is the worst place you can be. They either need to go all in this year and accept that there's a 5 year rebuild coming or completely tear it down. They already wasted a ton of player value sending a very mediocre team onto the field in 2019.

 

I would find a five-year rebuild to be unacceptable. I've always said I haven't had any issue with what the Cubs owners had for a payroll in the recent past even when people wanted them to spend more........but the Cubs should be in the top 5 in MLB consistently. And they shouldn't need five years to build a good team with that type of advantage.

 

But, yes, I do realize it appears they might not be willing to have a top 5 payroll.

 

Mostly agree, and they don’t have to spend like the Dodgers to be the Dodgers of the NL central. Having the 5th highest payroll in baseball should put them comfortably ahead of every other team in the division. Get the development on track and there’s no way it should take a 5 year total rebuild to get yourself in position for sustained success.

[Backtobanks]

At least Theo had a track record of building a team and had an owner willing to spend when it was necessary. Hoyer has always been in the mix, but was never the guy to build a team. Also, who knows what financial commitment PTR will make in a few years.

 

Hoyer was the GM of what I guess I have to call the first rebuild, I'm not worried about what he can do. Like in the grand scheme of MLB FO transitions, this is no different from Chris Antonetti taking over after Mark Shapiro left Cleveland *outside* of Hoyer having more overall experience and a WS win in the GM role.

 

 

Hoyer was the "GM", but everybody knew it was Theo calling the shots and pulling the strings during the rebuild.

[toonsterwu]

There is a world of difference between getting Asa Lacy and one of those other two though. Lacy is so much better

 

So

 

a) On value, I don't disagree. Lacy is a good notch ahead. I also think they are fairly unlikely to deal him. I just sort of lumped him in there as he was in the minors, but even a Hendricks deal (as I view Hendricks as likely having the most value), someone like Lacy doesn't seem likely.

 

b) Truthfully, was never that big on Lacy. I don't know what it is - or more, I don't remember why right now. Just never viewed him as a guy I really bought to be a top starter. A possible mid-rotation arm? Sure.

 

c) As a UVA fan, I'm as stunned about Lynch's development as anyone. With a bigger body of minor league work to judge off of, I'm legitimately intrigued with how they've straightened him out and he's become a power mid-upper 90's lefty. Can he keep that up? Don't know, but I don't think Lynch is all that bad as a headliner. I do think there's some areas where he's likely "safer" than Lacy while offering close enough upside.

 

d) Kowar's probably the least interesting of the three, as I view him more as a 4th starter who will eat innings who might be able to be slightly better. A useful guy, but obviously, not exciting. Still, he might be the safest of the three.

 

____

 

The match between the Cubs and the Royals is actually fairly intriguing. That said, it's probably a year too early for Dayton Moore to be making these moves, considering relatively new ownership, the pandemic, and a MLB squad undergoing changes.

[toonsterwu]

Honestly, if you are going a full re-start, then you need to place all your chips into restocking the system. As much as there's some high level intrigue now, most of it is far away with a lot of risk at hand. If you are selling, then you need to go all-in on selling, and if that's the case, your two assets that are likely to net the most impactful young talent in return would be Darvish and Hendricks. Hendricks would probably, at that contract, get a high level return. You'd arguably be selling high on Darvish, and the remaining deal (looks like 3/59) ought to be palatable enough for the Cubs to get a quality return without eating any of the money (if eating money would help increase the return, they should obviously do it).

 

Either way, if you are going to dip your toes into that pool. you need to jump in. Half-measures only extend and delay the inevitable. I don't know Cubs fans sites very well anymore, but I did see someone suggest moving Heyward. While that would be nice, it's hard to see that happen. Kimbrel ... it's hard to see a team taking him in the off-season. Mid-season, sure.

 

I don't have a problem tearing it down to the studs, but I think because of the lack of quality in our division you don't necessarily *have* to. You certainly need to make a trade or two that hurts, trading like Kimbrel and Schwarber does nothing. I think Darvish and Hendricks would each bring in Quintana-esque returns, but moving them wouldn't be my Plan A. Maybe I'm naive but I'm hoping to do more of a retool than a rebuild.

 

I've said it a couple times, but I think if you do still want to compete Bryant and Contreras is the path to go. We have high quality backups for each, while Bryant opens up funds to use in FA and Contreras brings in legitimate star power on the prospect front. I hate getting too bogged down on specific names, but something like Contreras to the Marlins for Bleday, Rogers, and another top 20 guy? A Contreras trade likely ends up really moving the needle on the farm system. Bryant's much harder to value, maybe to the Giants for Mauricio Dubon? That might require a few more names to balance it out.

 

Also, on just a pure cold numbers front, trading Javy makes some sense. If you backfilled him with Andrelton Simmons, you're not losing much if anything on defense and you're probably knocking out 100 strikeouts. That's something that will be felt at the team level. That said, I have a more visceral reaction to moving Javy than any of the other position players except for Rizzo.

 

Here's the question though. Is competing for the NL Central and hoping for luck enough in the playoffs?

 

I've said before, I think you can make a case for either way. Tearing it down, or running it back without trading young assets away. I just don't want them to do half-measures - trade a piece or two away and settle in for mediocrity and the hoped for lucky run, and I just don't see how one or two trades, while running the other guys back, is enough. I don't think any asset on our major league team is really going to net a big return in prospects, outside of maybe Darvish and Hendricks (I have my doubts Contreras will net a huge return - I really don't see a Bleday level guy being offered for him, but maybe I'm way off here).

 

Running it back is fine. You can make the argument that this climate might be tough to make major moves (the contracts on the team, and the fact that our top players might not net huge returns). The team as constituted is competitive enough to run it back, playing out the string, and not damaging a redeveloping farm system. Spend a little to try and fix the edges - gamble on an Adam Eaton and maybe he bounces back to be a solid top of the order option, sliding Bryant/Rizzo into better roles. Hope for some bounceback offensive years. See if you can't find a veteran starter and try and shore up the pen. Hope by mid-season you have an internal arm step up and solidify the back of the rotation.

[toonsterwu]

Victor Robles or buzz off, Nats

 

Oh and Tim Cate

 

The days of this as a possibility are long gone and likely so are the chances of landing Kieboom. At this point I think I'd be thrilled walking away with Jackson Rutledge and Seth Romero.

 

I wonder about them moving on from Kieboom this offseason (or at least, not having him in a key role). I have nothing to base it on, but just an odd feeling that they may have soured on him as fast as they soured on Giolito (albeit, maybe for different reasons). That said, probably aren't giving up that many years of control for a one and done. There's definitely enough arms to take a gamble on in the Nationals system. I'd love to see take a shot on Eddy Yean as a 2nd piece, although Bryant's value in a trade is just too damned hard to figure out right now.

[Backtobanks]

Honestly, if you are going a full re-start, then you need to place all your chips into restocking the system. As much as there's some high level intrigue now, most of it is far away with a lot of risk at hand. If you are selling, then you need to go all-in on selling, and if that's the case, your two assets that are likely to net the most impactful young talent in return would be Darvish and Hendricks. Hendricks would probably, at that contract, get a high level return. You'd arguably be selling high on Darvish, and the remaining deal (looks like 3/59) ought to be palatable enough for the Cubs to get a quality return without eating any of the money (if eating money would help increase the return, they should obviously do it).

 

Either way, if you are going to dip your toes into that pool. you need to jump in. Half-measures only extend and delay the inevitable. I don't know Cubs fans sites very well anymore, but I did see someone suggest moving Heyward. While that would be nice, it's hard to see that happen. Kimbrel ... it's hard to see a team taking him in the off-season. Mid-season, sure.

 

I don't have a problem tearing it down to the studs, but I think because of the lack of quality in our division you don't necessarily *have* to. You certainly need to make a trade or two that hurts, trading like Kimbrel and Schwarber does nothing. I think Darvish and Hendricks would each bring in Quintana-esque returns, but moving them wouldn't be my Plan A. Maybe I'm naive but I'm hoping to do more of a retool than a rebuild.

 

I've said it a couple times, but I think if you do still want to compete Bryant and Contreras is the path to go. We have high quality backups for each, while Bryant opens up funds to use in FA and Contreras brings in legitimate star power on the prospect front. I hate getting too bogged down on specific names, but something like Contreras to the Marlins for Bleday, Rogers, and another top 20 guy? A Contreras trade likely ends up really moving the needle on the farm system. Bryant's much harder to value, maybe to the Giants for Mauricio Dubon? That might require a few more names to balance it out.

 

Also, on just a pure cold numbers front, trading Javy makes some sense. If you backfilled him with Andrelton Simmons, you're not losing much if anything on defense and you're probably knocking out 100 strikeouts. That's something that will be felt at the team level. That said, I have a more visceral reaction to moving Javy than any of the other position players except for Rizzo.

 

Here's the question though. Is competing for the NL Central and hoping for luck enough in the playoffs?

 

I've said before, I think you can make a case for either way. Tearing it down, or running it back without trading young assets away. I just don't want them to do half-measures - trade a piece or two away and settle in for mediocrity and the hoped for lucky run, and I just don't see how one or two trades, while running the other guys back, is enough. I don't think any asset on our major league team is really going to net a big return in prospects, outside of maybe Darvish and Hendricks (I have my doubts Contreras will net a huge return - I really don't see a Bleday level guy being offered for him, but maybe I'm way off here).

 

I think you answered your own question. Making that 1 or 2 trades that clear some payroll and filling in with roles players is good enough to probably win the division. Trading off all of our top assets (Darvish, Hendricks, etc.) brings back top of the line prospects, but that doesn't guarantee total success in the future, especially when there's no way of knowing how generous PTR will be in a few years.

[toonsterwu]

I really phrased that poorly. What I really meant to say is that, selling one or two pieces and bringing the rest of the band back likely means we are hoping for luck in the playoffs, which can work, but would the fan base be okay with simply hoping for luck in the playoffs? Because I'm not necessarily sure I'd be for that. I'd rather build consistently strong, even if it means two to three years of tough times. If you are going to bring the band back, you might as well bring it all back (which would be a stronger team) and see if you can add a cheap veteran addition or two that could be primed for bounce backs.

[CubinNY]

"Here's the question though. Is competing for the NL Central and hoping for luck enough in the playoffs?"

 

This strikes me as a return to the Jim Hendry days. The playoffs are less of a crapshoot if you set the bar higher. Be that as it may, I also think it is important for a team to recognize when their window of elite caliber play is closed and to move on. It sure would have been nice to have the waves of talent, but it obviously didn't play out that way.

 

I hope they can get good players and not just dump salary when they start moving people.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I haven't thought deeply about this, but I think it's worth considering that there's a spectrum involved with the approach to the next 1-3 years. Yes, the last time the Cubs had a regime change they were very bad for several years in order to get the talent that propelled them to success. They also had a functionally barren farm system, no modern front office infrastructure, and were playing in a competitive environment with a reasonably tight correlation between spending and success.

 

To compare, the Cubs have a new person in charge but a lot of front office continuity, a farm system that isn't at the top but is already further along in terms of supplying talent(especially depth), the new CBA and broader trends have loosened the correlation between spending and success, the modern game has rewarded roster depth more than it has in the past(though you still must have stars), and we've got pandemic league finances that make the current market a complete unknown in terms of the cost of players and their value in trade.

 

They do have to make some opinionated decisions given the current roster, but they don't have to blow everything up if they aren't convinced the current group is going to be what gets them over the top.

[Bertz]

I haven't thought deeply about this, but I think it's worth considering that there's a spectrum involved with the approach to the next 1-3 years. Yes, the last time the Cubs had a regime change they were very bad for several years in order to get the talent that propelled them to success. They also had a functionally barren farm system, no modern front office infrastructure, and were playing in a competitive environment with a reasonably tight correlation between spending and success.

 

To compare, the Cubs have a new person in charge but a lot of front office continuity, a farm system that isn't at the top but is already further along in terms of supplying talent(especially depth), the new CBA and broader trends have loosened the correlation between spending and success, the modern game has rewarded roster depth more than it has in the past(though you still must have stars), and we've got pandemic league finances that make the current market a complete unknown in terms of the cost of players and their value in trade.

 

They do have to make some opinionated decisions given the current roster, but they don't have to blow everything up if they aren't convinced the current group is going to be what gets them over the top.

 

I think too, now that the cat is out of the bag with tanking and it's less of an...this is probably not the best choice of words...innovative strategy, I'm not sure that it nets you out that much better than a soft rebuild or a re-tool or whatever. The Phillies have clearly botched their rebuild. The White Sox are set up well, but don't look primed to reach super team status at any point. The Braves are awesome because of Acuna and Albies, who were non-premium IFAs they could have gotten regardless of whether they bottomed out. Yankees didn't tear it down. Dodgers didn't. Etc.

 

The difference between a regular good team and a super team is basically one additional star. You have a better chance of netting that guy by selling more pieces sure, but we're blessed with being in a payroll tier where more reliably you can just go buy that guy when the time is right.

[Cubswin11]

Doesn’t seem like a decision Manfred/MLB and MLBPA should be leaving in limbo with the offseason starting up. Kinda important for teams to know this with roster building decisions.

 

[Backtobanks]

Doesn’t seem like a decision Manfred/MLB and MLBPA should be leaving in limbo with the offseason starting up. Kinda important for teams to know this with roster building decisions.

 

 

Also, kind of important to the DHs looking to sign with someone.

[Cubswin11]

 

Contreras for Snell, doo it doo it

Every organization should have a general rule to never trade with the Rays, especially when they’re seeking a deal/selling and especially, especially should never trade for Rays pitchers

Edited November 24, 2020 by Cubswin11

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is the farm system really all that much better now than it was in late 2011? I'll admit to not being *that* plugged in anymore, but I don't think we have any Javy Baez's on the way.

[Cubswin11]

Is the farm system really all that much better now than it was in late 2011? I'll admit to not being *that* plugged in anymore, but I don't think we have any Javy Baez's on the way.

Howard and Davis absolutely can be Javy level. Same as that IFA kid (Hernandez, I think with the A-Rod comp). Amaya could be a well above average first division starter at catcher. There’s also a lot of other intriguing guys and at least a better infrastructure to develop them, I believe.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

So in case anyone missed it, yesterday’s press conference put to rest any remaining debate about what the offseason strategy is: try to win the division while adjusting to the new financial reality, keeping one eye on a future a little more than normal while also being opportunistic

 

Or in so many words, 1) not a teardown, 2) not keeping everybody even if better to, 3) not signing anybody big, 4) probably gonna move slowly

[jersey cubs fan]

So in case anyone missed it, yesterday’s press conference put to rest any remaining debate about what the offseason strategy is: try to win the division while adjusting to the new financial reality, keeping one eye on a future a little more than normal while also being opportunistic

 

Or in so many words, 1) not a teardown, 2) not keeping everybody even if better to, 3) not signing anybody big, 4) probably gonna move slowly

Hope that nobody else wins 89

[Backtobanks]

So in case anyone missed it, yesterday’s press conference put to rest any remaining debate about what the offseason strategy is: try to win the division while adjusting to the new financial reality, keeping one eye on a future a little more than normal while also being opportunistic

 

Or in so many words, 1) not a teardown, 2) not keeping everybody even if better to, 3) not signing anybody big, 4) probably gonna move slowly

Hope that nobody else wins 89

 

The NL Central winner could be as ugly as the NFC East.

[jersey cubs fan]

So in case anyone missed it, yesterday’s press conference put to rest any remaining debate about what the offseason strategy is: try to win the division while adjusting to the new financial reality, keeping one eye on a future a little more than normal while also being opportunistic

 

Or in so many words, 1) not a teardown, 2) not keeping everybody even if better to, 3) not signing anybody big, 4) probably gonna move slowly

Hope that nobody else wins 89

 

The NL Central winner could be as ugly as the NFC East.

 

I doubt the NL Central winner will lose 90 games