Happ and Hoerner Extension and Whatnot

[CubinNY]

There has been no news on either extension, but there is a new article in the Athletic that says Happer is worth about 5/$90M. I don't think Tommy Boy's Tommy Boy is interested in that at all. I'm not sure I am either given the depth of outfield prospects on the near and mid-term horizon.

 

Nico on the other hand needs to be locked down at fair market value.

 

https://theathletic.com/4297008/2023/03/14/walk-year-extension-mlb/

[sneakypower]

i honestly think that GMs should be far more aggressive in locking up young players like these before their breakout, because even when it doesn't really work out, the math on your losses for Jon Singleton/Scott Kingery/David Bote guarantees pales in comparison to the huge savings you get from Rizzo-type sweetheart deals, and also it demonstrates to players (for whatever its worth) that you're committed to them through injury & health etc. even though in reality you're just looking to save money on the aggregate

 

basically, the time to do these was when Ian Happ was languishing as a 1.5-win player and before Nico "proved himself" as a 3-4 WAR guy

[Bertz]

Honestly I'm pretty comfortable if Jed doesn't pull the trigger on any extensions.

 

I'd definitely let Happ walk. Cool dude but I just have no interest in locking up a pure LF unless they have enough bat that I'd be comfortable making them the full time DH in a few years. Particularly with what we've got on the farm.

 

Hoerner's it really depends on the pricepoint. He's very good but then again do I want to be on the hook for a batting average + defense guy five years out? There's some budding power there, but if that doesn't manifest any further then I would probably like to bid him adieu once his defense starts veering back towards average. Odds are that process starts before his team control runs out.

 

The rookies are a little problematic as well. Davis and Canario have major health red flags, while Mervis and Wesneski are old enough that you've already got them locked up into their 30's. While not a rookie Steele is also in the "probably too old" camp.

 

I'd maybe go to some of the guys in AA like PCA, Wicks, and Brown and see if they want to work something out. I'd also be interested in going long with Bellinger depending on what internal evaluations have looked like this spring. But then again if it was worth it Scott Boras would never do it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

i honestly think that GMs should be far more aggressive in locking up young players like these before their breakout, because even when it doesn't really work out, the math on your losses for Jon Singleton/Scott Kingery/David Bote guarantees pales in comparison to the huge savings you get from Rizzo-type sweetheart deals, and also it demonstrates to players (for whatever its worth) that you're committed to them through injury & health etc. even though in reality you're just looking to save money on the aggregate

 

basically, the time to do these was when Ian Happ was languishing as a 1.5-win player and before Nico "proved himself" as a 3-4 WAR guy

 

Agreed, and if you're doing it a year early, you're probably more likely to be able to get away with option years or the like to hedge against length.

 

As for Happ in 2023, this isn't a Ricketts decision, it's a Jed decision. Even if payroll is flat, you're losing more than 65 million in LT salary with Heyward, Hendricks, Happ, and Bellinger(not including lower salaries at catcher and in the bullpen). The question is would you rather have Ian Happ for 4-6 years after 2023, or would you rather have a comp pick and the 18 million to spend elsewhere. I don't think there's an objectively right or wrong answer to that question. On one hand, the Cubs need to avoid being on a treadmill of replacing existing production in order to make the leap, and Happ is clearly a good player that doesn't look to be high risk of collapsing in value thanks to his well rounded profile. On the other hand, Happ plays the easiest position to find production for, there are likely to be several internal options that could slide in for him, and banking the pick lowers the barrier to pay for a QO FA and increase the odds the team gets the starpower it needs(and that Happ can't provide).

[CubinNY]

I understand the Happ situation.

 

I don't get the Nico situation. They keep saying you have to build from within and you can't buy your way to a WS through FA. Well, the system is bare at the middle infield. You have a guy who can hold down the position for the next 6 or 7 years and give league-average or better production and league-average or better defense. If they can get him for 5 of those years for less than it will cost to replace him, they should do it.

 

Using the Joey Votto logic to hitting in the MLB, I suppose Morel could replace him, but he has to show he can hit a fastball first.

[Brock Beauchamp]

i honestly think that GMs should be far more aggressive in locking up young players like these before their breakout, because even when it doesn't really work out, the math on your losses for Jon Singleton/Scott Kingery/David Bote guarantees pales in comparison to the huge savings you get from Rizzo-type sweetheart deals, and also it demonstrates to players (for whatever its worth) that you're committed to them through injury & health etc. even though in reality you're just looking to save money on the aggregate

 

basically, the time to do these was when Ian Happ was languishing as a 1.5-win player and before Nico "proved himself" as a 3-4 WAR guy

I completely agree with this. The hit rate can be so much lower on these contracts and the team still comes out ahead (while the player enjoys financial security and fans are able to watch players stay in the same laundry for longer).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As for Happ in 2023, this isn't a Ricketts decision, it's a Jed decision. Even if payroll is flat, you're losing more than 65 million in LT salary with Heyward, Hendricks, Happ, and Bellinger(not including lower salaries at catcher and in the bullpen). The question is would you rather have Ian Happ for 4-6 years after 2023, or would you rather have a comp pick and the 18 million to spend elsewhere. I don't think there's an objectively right or wrong answer to that question. On one hand, the Cubs need to avoid being on a treadmill of replacing existing production in order to make the leap, and Happ is clearly a good player that doesn't look to be high risk of collapsing in value thanks to his well rounded profile. On the other hand, Happ plays the easiest position to find production for, there are likely to be several internal options that could slide in for him, and banking the pick lowers the barrier to pay for a QO FA and increase the odds the team gets the starpower it needs(and that Happ can't provide).

 

One other thing that might tilt this in favor of signing Happ are the circumstances of this particular offseason. As long as Bellinger isn't horrific, he's gonna get a QO too, and if he's good he's probably the most attractive target this side of Ohtani and wouldn't cost a pick. So the marginal upside of Happ's QO pick may be less than if he were the only one. And to that point, the FA class at the moment looks really rough. It's Ohtani, the hope that Flaherty and Bellinger revive their star form, a couple interesting SP, and a bunch of post-prime sadness. You wouldn't want to commit to 5 years of Happ just because one class was thin, and you can also trade for a contract or trade + extend like the Braves do(though those options aren't obvious, maybe Moncada?), but the lack of options as attractive as Happ should enter the equation at some point.