7/22 - Cardinals (Mikolas) vs Cubs (Fulmer): 1:20pm, Marquee

[chibears55]

Late to the party here today..

So, what next for Smyly next start, use 2 openers so he don't have to come in until the 5th inning 🙄🙄🤣

Safe to say I doubt any contending team gonna be offering up much if anything for this guy,  if they do get an offer they better take it and save themselves over 11 mil..

[UMFan83]

Cincinnati won today, so the Cubs can't gain ground in the WC race today.  A win will keep them 6 back of Cincinnati and Philly if they win tonight.

[UMFan83]

Holy horsefeathers how did Nootbar catch that while falling away from the ball?

Damn....he's saved 3 runs today with catches near the wall.

 

The first was against the wall with a runner on 1st and 2 outs that would have scored then this one was falling down at the track with runners on 1st and 2nd and 2 outs, both of whom would have scored if he doesn't catch it

Edited July 22, 2023 by UMFan83

[Andy]

Of course the nut bar stumbles around like a drunk doe the entire time that ball is in the air but makes the catch anyway

[UMFan83]

Nice job Wisdom!  2 nice plays out there.

Got through Goldschmidt and Arenado can't tie the game in the 9th so good stuff.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, UMFan83 said:

Nice job Wisdom!  2 nice plays out there.

Got through Goldschmidt and Arenado can't tie the game in the 9th so good stuff.

The 9th is set to be Gorman-Arenado-Herrera (or PH) so that's still on the table.

[UMFan83]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The 9th is set to be Gorman-Arenado-Herrera (or PH) so that's still on the table.

I just assumed they were hitting back to back like yesterday, my bad.  OK well get out Gorman to lead off the 9th so he can't tie it.

Or score a bunch of runs here and make it futile.

[Tryptamine]

Gorman vs Adbert is super scary

[Irrelevant Dude]

1 minute ago, Tryptamine said:

Gorman vs Adbert is super scary

You got that right.

[Tryptamine]

And he almost killed Adbert

[Tryptamine]

Loading up the lefties against Alzolay 

[UMFan83]

Nice W. 3 of 4 was the minimum and the Cubs have a chance to do that tomorrow

[Tryptamine]

Still firmly in sell camp even if they win tomorrow. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I mean, it's still probably a good idea to sell but at least they're trying to make it interesting in the lead-up to the deadline and I will never, ever complain about someone beating the Cardinals.

[JD94]

1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

Still firmly in sell camp even if they win tomorrow. 

Same. I don’t care what they do really until the deadline, they should still sell. 
 

It sucks though. We are the Chicago Cubs. We deserve to be watching a contender every year. I loved seeing Wrigley rocking today when Belli got the big 2 run single. We deserve that. They better hurry up and put a legit team on the field. Like next year quick. No more excuses. 
 

Theo took over at the end of 2011 and started the rebuild and had a 97 win team on the field in 2015, which was going into year 4. Jed will be going into year 4 next year of a “re-tool” where we didn’t hard tank for draft picks, but have sold for 3 straight years at the deadline. It’s time he puts a winner on the field. This team was in much worse shape when Theo took over also. Jed had the luxury of extremely valuable trade chips at his disposal to start this thing off. 

[UMFan83]

Brewers beat the Braves tonight meaning the Cubs will gain no ground in the division or WC tonight. Running out of time to gain the ground we need to avoid selling. 
 

I know some people are saying sell no matter what and that’s fine but I’ll hold out hope until I can’t anymore. I do think even if we sell it should be a light sell and if we’re trading guys like Bellinger or Stroman we should be looking for pieces in return that can help in 2024 or 2025 at the latest. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by UMFan83

[Eeyore]

I don't think that they'll spend money beyond flippable players until the talent starts to filter in from the minors. Once they see what they have and what they need, they'll supplement what they have with what they need or, trade excess for it. I doubt that the Ricketts care enough about winning beyond the difference that it makes to the bottom line. I'm thinking that we'll see what they have in 2025 and things may move from there and even that's optimistic based on the hope that enough prospects succeed.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Eeyore

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, UMFan83 said:

I know some people are saying sell no matter what and that’s fine but I’ll hold out hope until I can’t anymore. I do think even if we sell it should be a light sell and if we’re trading guys like Bellinger or Stroman we should be looking for pieces in return that can help in 2024 or 2025 at the latest. 

I don't want to harp on this point but I think that's always been the plan regardless of their play in July.  They have been too far back for a while to make any 2023-only moves, but 2024 contributors should absolutely going to be the priority. So much so I have a lot of conviction that Bellinger in particular won't be traded because they want the flexibility to sign a QO FA without crippling their 2024 draft(or extend Bellinger).  That means that Stroman is the only really consequential wild card, which I don't have a great feel on.  He's consequential enough that I don't think they should base the trade/hold/extend decision on whether their playoff odds are 8% or 14% or 21% though.

[thawv]

Maybe you guys can help me out.  If a player has an option, and it's not picked up, can the team still make a QO?  I don't know the answer, but I feel like once you decline the option, he should be a FA.  He shouldn't have the QO attached to him.  

 

Thanks fellas!

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

Maybe you guys can help me out.  If a player has an option, and it's not picked up, can the team still make a QO?  I don't know the answer, but I feel like once you decline the option, he should be a FA.  He shouldn't have the QO attached to him.  

Thanks fellas!

Okay, so Bellinger got me to looking this up a few weeks back because I wasn't sure how mutual options worked with the QO, either.

I *think* it works this way:

1. The team rejects the mutual option
2. The player rejects the mutual option
3. The team can then offer a QO

[thawv]

14 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Okay, so Bellinger got me to looking this up a few weeks back because I wasn't sure how mutual options worked with the QO, either.

I *think* it works this way:

1. The team rejects the mutual option
2. The player rejects the mutual option
3. The team can then offer a QO

Thanks Brock!  But what if it's just a team option?  I'm probably wrong, but it seem odd that they can not pick up the option, essentially terminating the contract, and then still make him a QO.  That seems unfair to the player.  I would assume that to be able to make a QO, that the contract has to expire naturally, of mutually.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 minutes ago, thawv said:

Thanks Brock!  But what if it's just a team option?  I'm probably wrong, but it seem odd that they can not pick up the option, essentially terminating the contract, and then still make him a QO.  That seems unfair to the player.  I would assume that to be able to make a QO, that the contract has to expire naturally, of mutually.  

I think team options work the same way but haven’t looked into it. I think the dates for options and QOs are different and unrelated. That’s my impression, anyway. 

[thawv]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think team options work the same way but haven’t looked into it. I think the dates for options and QOs are different and unrelated. That’s my impression, anyway. 

I have no idea at all.  But it just "feels" like a team shouldn't be able to terminate the contract by not picking up his option, and still benefit from being able making him a QO.  And it hurts the player to carry that tag around with him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

26 minutes ago, thawv said:

I have no idea at all.  But it just "feels" like a team shouldn't be able to terminate the contract by not picking up his option, and still benefit from being able making him a QO.  And it hurts the player to carry that tag around with him.

I agree but I would prefer to see the QO go away entirely, or at least the punishment side of it. Teams getting an extra pick for losing a FA is fine, probably good, but teams losing picks is garbage.

[Tim]

11 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I agree but I would prefer to see the QO go away entirely, or at least the punishment side of it. Teams getting an extra pick for losing a FA is fine, probably good, but teams losing picks is garbage.

I completely agree