2022-23 Offseason Thread (Cubs)

[Bertz]

If I had to guess, I feel like the Giants land Correa with the money they would’ve given Judge and then Swanson is our consolation prize. There’s really nothing about Swanson to excite me about locking him up for 8+ years, but he’s a clear improvement.

 

If that’s how the SS situation plays out, are they going to try to sell Swanson/Bellinger/Taillon as fulfilling the supposed “do whatever it takes to turn the team around” mandate? Or, hopefully, are they still looking for impact elsewhere? I think (short of Correa), it’d take Senga+Murphy for this off-season to generate any sort of excitement for me.

 

If Jed's willing to blow past the LT, even with the caveat that it's predominantly with 1 year deals, he can make a very good team even with Swanson as the crown jewel. For example, something like

 

Swanson

Vazquez

Corey Kluber

Michael Brantley

Adam Ottavino

Taylor Rogers

 

That plugs every hole on the roster with a legitimately good player. The defense would be fantastic and the offense would be good, though sorely lacking a "the guy." The pitching staff would be similar, I'd probably feel good with every pitcher we have on the mound except Hendricks (which there's no getting around). Probably about half the opening day Iowa staff too. Again though lacking a guy you'd throw out there in game one, or hell maybe even game two, of a playoff series.

 

Is it the team you're gonna pick up to use in MLB the Show? Absolutely not. Is it going to win a lot of games? I really think so. It's not sexy, but loading up on depth and grinding opposing teams down really works (at least I'm the regular season...).

 

But you've gotta spend. If you're punting on adding a star, you've gotta be buttoned up absolutely everywhere. Every horsefeathering inning and every horsefeathering plate appear needs to be taken by a guy you're happy to have on the roster. Otherwise you've gotta hope to get an unexpected superstar performance from internal options, or hope that the Cardinals faceplant. Neither is a smart thing to count on.

[David]

 

If that’s how the SS situation plays out, are they going to try to sell Swanson/Bellinger/Taillon as fulfilling the supposed “do whatever it takes to turn the team around” mandate?

 

 

It's probably enough to sell to enough dopes making a bus trip from Iowa every year to see a middling 78-82 win team this summer.

 

Sorry, it just reminds me of the 80's and 90s Cubs

 

I really really want it to be Correa, like really, really, but this is an absolutely bonkers [expletive] insane way to characterize a Dansby Swanson signing. That's nothing like the 80s/90s Cubs.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

If I had to guess, I feel like the Giants land Correa with the money they would’ve given Judge and then Swanson is our consolation prize. There’s really nothing about Swanson to excite me about locking him up for 8+ years, but he’s a clear improvement.

 

If that’s how the SS situation plays out, are they going to try to sell Swanson/Bellinger/Taillon as fulfilling the supposed “do whatever it takes to turn the team around” mandate? Or, hopefully, are they still looking for impact elsewhere? I think (short of Correa), it’d take Senga+Murphy for this off-season to generate any sort of excitement for me.

 

If Jed's willing to blow past the LT, even with the caveat that it's predominantly with 1 year deals, he can make a very good team even with Swanson as the crown jewel. For example, something like

 

Swanson

Vazquez

Corey Kluber

Michael Brantley

Adam Ottavino

Taylor Rogers

 

That plugs every hole on the roster with a legitimately good player. The defense would be fantastic and the offense would be good, though sorely lacking a "the guy." The pitching staff would be similar, I'd probably feel good with every pitcher we have on the mound except Hendricks (which there's no getting around). Probably about half the opening day Iowa staff too. Again though lacking a guy you'd throw out there in game one, or hell maybe even game two, of a playoff series.

 

Is it the team you're gonna pick up to use in MLB the Show? Absolutely not. Is it going to win a lot of games? I really think so. It's not sexy, but loading up on depth and grinding opposing teams down really works (at least I'm the regular season...).

 

But you've gotta spend. If you're punting on adding a star, you've gotta be buttoned up absolutely everywhere. Every horsefeathering inning and every horsefeathering plate appear needs to be taken by a guy you're happy to have on the roster. Otherwise you've gotta hope to get an unexpected superstar performance from internal options, or hope that the Cardinals faceplant. Neither is a smart thing to count on.

 

Man, this would be such a depressing outcome. Upside is one year of potentially backing into a WC spot.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Increasingly, what I'd really like them to do is add enough that they're comfortable trading Morel. I like Morel, but he's possibly at a high in value given his swing and miss, he's really probably a 2B/3B which if you add a SS cuts out lots of potential PT(plus next year's FA stars are shaping to be 3B-heavy), and he's got enough value to lead a trade for a significant addition that doesn't carry a big salary. You can use him to get Murphy(good fit, requires more), Jansen(bad fit, standalone), or a Marlins SP(good fit, requires slightly more) and work around that with the rest of your additions.

[Bertz]

If I had to guess, I feel like the Giants land Correa with the money they would’ve given Judge and then Swanson is our consolation prize. There’s really nothing about Swanson to excite me about locking him up for 8+ years, but he’s a clear improvement.

 

If that’s how the SS situation plays out, are they going to try to sell Swanson/Bellinger/Taillon as fulfilling the supposed “do whatever it takes to turn the team around” mandate? Or, hopefully, are they still looking for impact elsewhere? I think (short of Correa), it’d take Senga+Murphy for this off-season to generate any sort of excitement for me.

 

If Jed's willing to blow past the LT, even with the caveat that it's predominantly with 1 year deals, he can make a very good team even with Swanson as the crown jewel. For example, something like

 

Swanson

Vazquez

Corey Kluber

Michael Brantley

Adam Ottavino

Taylor Rogers

 

That plugs every hole on the roster with a legitimately good player. The defense would be fantastic and the offense would be good, though sorely lacking a "the guy." The pitching staff would be similar, I'd probably feel good with every pitcher we have on the mound except Hendricks (which there's no getting around). Probably about half the opening day Iowa staff too. Again though lacking a guy you'd throw out there in game one, or hell maybe even game two, of a playoff series.

 

Is it the team you're gonna pick up to use in MLB the Show? Absolutely not. Is it going to win a lot of games? I really think so. It's not sexy, but loading up on depth and grinding opposing teams down really works (at least I'm the regular season...).

 

But you've gotta spend. If you're punting on adding a star, you've gotta be buttoned up absolutely everywhere. Every horsefeathering inning and every horsefeathering plate appear needs to be taken by a guy you're happy to have on the roster. Otherwise you've gotta hope to get an unexpected superstar performance from internal options, or hope that the Cardinals faceplant. Neither is a smart thing to count on.

 

Man, this would be such a depressing outcome. Upside is one year of potentially backing into a WC spot.

 

The approach certainly has some problems, but I wouldn't view it as a one year thing. Quite the opposite really, it's kicking the can down the road again on doing something super fun in the name of sustainability.

 

The main appeal is that you've kept the majority of your powder dry. You've signed no QO free agents, you've traded no prospects, and you've added less in multi-year FA contracts than you have rolling off the books a year from now. If Stroman indeed ends up opting out, you open next offseason $100M+ under the Luxury Tax. Given the prospects currently in the upper minors, plus that we'd essentially be swapping Heyward/Hendricks for Swanson/Taillon, we'd be starting next offseason at a baseline of closer to 85 wins than the 75ish they started this winter at. At that point $100M can do some real horsefeathering damage.

 

But like the FO hasn't brought in a Star since Darvish right before horsefeathering ST 2018. That sucks.

[JeffH]

The main appeal is that you've kept the majority of your powder dry. You've signed no QO free agents, you've traded no prospects, and you've added less in multi-year FA contracts than you have rolling off the books a year from now.

 

Dansby.

[Bertz]

The main appeal is that you've kept the majority of your powder dry. You've signed no QO free agents, you've traded no prospects, and you've added less in multi-year FA contracts than you have rolling off the books a year from now.

 

Dansby.

 

Ah, good call!

[Bobson Dugnutt]

 

If Jed's willing to blow past the LT, even with the caveat that it's predominantly with 1 year deals, he can make a very good team even with Swanson as the crown jewel. For example, something like

 

Swanson

Vazquez

Corey Kluber

Michael Brantley

Adam Ottavino

Taylor Rogers

 

That plugs every hole on the roster with a legitimately good player. The defense would be fantastic and the offense would be good, though sorely lacking a "the guy." The pitching staff would be similar, I'd probably feel good with every pitcher we have on the mound except Hendricks (which there's no getting around). Probably about half the opening day Iowa staff too. Again though lacking a guy you'd throw out there in game one, or hell maybe even game two, of a playoff series.

 

Is it the team you're gonna pick up to use in MLB the Show? Absolutely not. Is it going to win a lot of games? I really think so. It's not sexy, but loading up on depth and grinding opposing teams down really works (at least I'm the regular season...).

 

But you've gotta spend. If you're punting on adding a star, you've gotta be buttoned up absolutely everywhere. Every horsefeathering inning and every horsefeathering plate appear needs to be taken by a guy you're happy to have on the roster. Otherwise you've gotta hope to get an unexpected superstar performance from internal options, or hope that the Cardinals faceplant. Neither is a smart thing to count on.

 

Man, this would be such a depressing outcome. Upside is one year of potentially backing into a WC spot.

 

The approach certainly has some problems, but I wouldn't view it as a one year thing. Quite the opposite really, it's kicking the can down the road again on doing something super fun in the name of sustainability.

 

The main appeal is that you've kept the majority of your powder dry. You've signed no QO free agents, you've traded no prospects, and you've added less in multi-year FA contracts than you have rolling off the books a year from now. If Stroman indeed ends up opting out, you open next offseason $100M+ under the Luxury Tax. Given the prospects currently in the upper minors, plus that we'd essentially be swapping Heyward/Hendricks for Swanson/Taillon, we'd be starting next offseason at a baseline of closer to 85 wins than the 75ish they started this winter at. At that point $100M can do some real horsefeathering damage.

 

But like the FO hasn't brought in a Star since Darvish right before horsefeathering ST 2018. That sucks.

 

It’s better than nothing and makes them more watchable I guess (by nature of having fewer black holes), but I don’t see a whole lot in next year’s FA class worth keeping the powder dry for. Ohtani, Devers, Machado and…stuff. And this FO and ownership group hasn’t proven they’re willing to pony up for that level of player anyway. So if they sign a bunch of 35 year old mid-rotation and complementary lineup pieces for this year, I’m not going to be brimming with confidence that next year is the year they change course after 5 years of operating like a middle market franchise.

 

A couple moves that address roster spots for the next several seasons rather than banking on the Ricketts being the ones willing to give Ohtani $400 million+ is much more preferable IMO. Besides, if they do want to play in those waters (and they should) it shouldn’t preclude them from anything this off-season.

[CubinNY]

I think the Cubs have to pull out all the stops and do what it takes to get Correra. He's everything they want and everything they need. It sends a message to the fans and other teams they are back in the game. Then they need to use some minor league capital and get one of the two catchers available, Jansen is my preference, but not strongly so.

[17 Seconds]

i think my opinion of jed is dependent on these next few weeks

 

why the horsefeathers didn't we sign a 1b

[CubinNY]

i think my opinion of jed is dependent on these next few weeks

 

why the horsefeathers didn't we sign a 1b

They did, Bellinger

[17 Seconds]

i think my opinion of jed is dependent on these next few weeks

 

why the horsefeathers didn't we sign a 1b

They did, Bellinger

 

then sign nimmo

[Cubswin11]

With where we’re at. And I think it’s all feasible, wouldn’t mind doing Turner+ Swanson FA and a Murphy trade. Turner is 3B, Wisdom/Mervis/Bellinger 1B, Bellinger mostly CF, Morel is the RHH OF/utility guy then. Then do a Smyly/Syndergaard level SP add and then 2 of Kimbrel, Rogers, Ottavino, Nelson, Smith, Britton, vet FA RPs.

[Tryptamine]

If they signed Bellinger as a 1B, then fire Hoyer immediately. 17m for a 1B unlikely to put up 100 ops+ would be a laughably terrible waste of resources.

[CubinNY]

I think the Cubs have to pull out all the stops and do what it takes to get Correra. He's everything they want and everything they need. It sends a message to the fans and other teams they are back in the game. Then they need to use some minor league capital and get one of the two catchers available, Jansen is my preference, but not strongly so.

 

I can get close enough with the Correa stuff, up to this point pbly. Are we not exhausted of being marketed to? I do not want this kind of signing after pissing on the 2016 team otw out for aging as if they’re the only ones

No clue what you are trying to say?

[Bertz]

If they signed Bellinger as a 1B, then fire Hoyer immediately. 17m for a 1B unlikely to put up 100 ops+ would be a laughably terrible waste of resources.

 

Yeah Bellinger was not brought in with the intention of playing 1st. Is the flexibility nice, sure. There are certainly scenarios where Bellinger and Davis are both crushing it and that's a way to get them both into the lineup. But Bellinger's been one of the worst hitters in the league the last two years but has played monster enough defense to mostly compensate for it. They're planning on the latter continuing while trying to mitigate the former.

[CoolHandLuke]

I want to know how many unique abbreviations Tom has for the word probably.

[UMFan83]

If for some reason the cubs don’t get Correa or Swanson, what types of moves could they investigate to bring in a big bat via trade? Any chance Tatis is available?

[17 Seconds]

If for some reason the cubs don’t get Correa or Swanson, what types of moves could they investigate to bring in a big bat via trade? Any chance Tatis is available?

 

devers

[17 Seconds]

right now we could have schwarber, rizzo, and contreras on good contracts, and all it would have cost us is kevin alcantara

[CubinNY]

Signing Correra is not a symbol gesture. For crying out loud.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If they signed Bellinger as a 1B, then fire Hoyer immediately. 17m for a 1B unlikely to put up 100 ops+ would be a laughably terrible waste of resources.

 

Yeah Bellinger was not brought in with the intention of playing 1st. Is the flexibility nice, sure. There are certainly scenarios where Bellinger and Davis are both crushing it and that's a way to get them both into the lineup. But Bellinger's been one of the worst hitters in the league the last two years but has played monster enough defense to mostly compensate for it. They're planning on the latter continuing while trying to mitigate the former.

 

Even setting aside the 1B part of it, any team that paid 17 million for Bellinger did so with belief he'd be a better hitter than recent form, otherwise they'd find a far cheaper option for bad bat CF defense. With that in mind, I don't think Plan A is Bellinger at 1B, but I think that option as a contingency could very well be part of it. That contingency could be Davis going nuts to start the year like you said, or it could be Mervis falling on his face while Velazquez looks good. Or it could be that the plan is to sign Swanson but if it falls through they don't want to lose the option to pay Nimmo or trade for one of Arizona's outfielders.

 

I also think for a team in the Cubs' position, banking a signing like Bellinger(and Taillon) even if you aren't 100% sure how he'll be used is something that's done as a signal of intent to other players they may be working with that may be hesitant about the team's competitive intent. His positional flexibility just keeps more potential options open that can be bigger upgrades than the post-prime crowd or buy low bounceback guys.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

If they signed Bellinger as a 1B, then fire Hoyer immediately. 17m for a 1B unlikely to put up 100 ops+ would be a laughably terrible waste of resources.

 

Yeah Bellinger was not brought in with the intention of playing 1st. Is the flexibility nice, sure. There are certainly scenarios where Bellinger and Davis are both crushing it and that's a way to get them both into the lineup. But Bellinger's been one of the worst hitters in the league the last two years but has played monster enough defense to mostly compensate for it. They're planning on the latter continuing while trying to mitigate the former.

 

Even setting aside the 1B part of it, any team that paid 17 million for Bellinger did so with belief he'd be a better hitter than recent form, otherwise they'd find a far cheaper option for bad bat CF defense. With that in mind, I don't think Plan A is Bellinger at 1B, but I think that option as a contingency could very well be part of it. That contingency could be Davis going nuts to start the year like you said, or it could be Mervis falling on his face while Velazquez looks good. Or it could be that the plan is to sign Swanson but if it falls through they don't want to lose the option to pay Nimmo or trade for one of Arizona's outfielders.

 

I also think for a team in the Cubs' position, banking a signing like Bellinger(and Taillon) even if you aren't 100% sure how he'll be used is something that's done as a signal of intent to other players they may be working with that may be hesitant about the team's competitive intent. His positional flexibility just keeps more potential options open that can be bigger upgrades than the post-prime crowd or buy low bounceback guys.

 

I keep seeing this type of sentiment surrounding Bellinger. Even acknowledging the positional versatility and strong defense, as well as the Cubs’ own belief that they can fix the bat, why should signing a guys who’s OPS’ed .648 over has past ~1100 PAs signal anything beyond, “we needed someone to play CF” to any other FA. Not trying to be snide by any means, genuinely curious. Feels like they’d have to do quite the sell job to any other FA that they can be the ones to do what the Dodgers couldn’t for this signing to carry any meaning. Does his name and track record from 2019 and prior carry that much weight?

 

For the record, I’m not even against the signing, because, again, someone has to play CF. Might as well be him, assuming it doesn’t preclude other more meaningful moves.

[David]

I think part of the answer to the above (albeit not a great reason) is that fellow players are less likely to cast aside players of his caliber even after a couple of (really) down years than we as fans are. It's just kind of the nature of him being one of them and having been really good. But maybe I'm way off.

[Cubswin11]

right now we could have schwarber, rizzo, and contreras on good contracts, and all it would have cost us is kevin alcantara

Contreras contract isn’t good