Buy or sell, where do you land? Let's talk hot stove.

[Jason Ross]

I honestly can't say whether the Cubs winning these games is truly a good thing or a bad thing.  If the Cubs end up not selling, but buying the likes of mediocre talents like CJ Cron only to miss out on the playoffs, lose Stroman and Bellinger for mediocre comp picks...I don't think this is a good thing.  More fun at the time, maybe, but long term worse than having 2 of the better trading pieces on the market.  

On the other hand, if this causes the Cubs to be a bit more aggressive and buy some cost controlled players (I won't really speculat who, because these players are rarely "shopped" but do exist on the market.  See the Blue Jays acquisition of like Jose Berrios the other year) than it could be great.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I honestly can't say whether the Cubs winning these games is truly a good thing or a bad thing.  If the Cubs end up not selling, but buying the likes of mediocre talents like CJ Cron only to miss out on the playoffs, lose Stroman and Bellinger for mediocre comp picks...I don't think this is a good thing.  More fun at the time, maybe, but long term worse than having 2 of the better trading pieces on the market.

It's a difficult decision to make and the recent wins absolutely confuse the situation.

Watching engaging baseball down the stretch is both fun and profitable for a team. But at this potential cost to long-term competitiveness, there is reason to pause and consider whether it's a good idea.

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

It's a difficult decision to make and the recent wins absolutely confuse the situation.

Watching engaging baseball down the stretch is both fun and profitable for a team. But at this potential cost to long-term competitiveness, there is reason to pause and consider whether it's a good idea.

Yeah, even more complicated when you have someone like Hoyer in a position where I'm not sure he's on *the* hot seat today but is slowly working his way into one.  Does he have personal motivations for eschewing long term for short term worried about his own future?  Can Hoyer face the fans and sell those two in the face of some wins over the last 1.5 weeks?

Whatever the decisions that are made here are going to be very tough and I'm not entirely sure I have full trust with the current FO in their decision making.  They do great, IMO on the MiLB front but their MLB strategies are...a bit all over the place for me.  I'll admit being a nervy Cub fan these next 6 days.

[CubinNY]

10 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

It's a difficult decision to make and the recent wins absolutely confuse the situation.

Watching engaging baseball down the stretch is both fun and profitable for a team. But at this potential cost to long-term competitiveness, there is reason to pause and consider whether it's a good idea.

I think TT is probably close to accurate on the trade front. I don't think trading Stroman or Bellinger is going to net them a game-changing player. Also, if they are buying, I don't think they will be dealing from the top 10 or so. There are a lot of OF redundant prospects, and a few IF and SP. So the way I see it now, buying or selling is nibbling at the margins. I think most people agree that the Cubs are not a strong team, and won't be after the deadline. But if they get into the playoffs, the playoffs are what they are. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by CubinNY

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I think TT is probably close to accurate on the trade front. I don't think trading Stroman or Bellinger is going to net them a game-changing player. Also, if they are buying, I don't think they will be dealing from the top 10 or so. There are a lot of OF redundant prospects, and a few IF and SP. So the way I see it now, buying or selling is nibbling at the margins. I think most people agree that the Cubs are not a strong team, and won't be after the deadline. But if they get into the playoffs, the playoffs are what they are. 

I disagree with the idea the Cubs cannot get a game changing prospect.  Now, I'm pretty sure they won't be getting a top-25 prospect *today* but the Cubs have gotten both PCA and Kevin Alcantara via the deadline with worse trade chips than either Stroman or Bellinger.  They can certainly get a prospect with tantalizing upside, it just might not be today upside.  The Cubs do quite well when given the run of prospects to choose from via trade.  I trust the Cubs in their prospect evaluations and I think a really good return is in the table.  

The Cubs should probably choose a lane here.  I think nibbling at the margins hoping you can sneak into the playoffs is a pretty good way to finish with 82 wins, no playoff appearance and losing Bellinger/Stroman for comp picks.  If we want to make every attempt at the playoffs precious, a belief I'm always for, than we need to act that way to a decent degree.  Not selling PCA for a rental, mind you, but it has to be more than "raising the floor" at 1b and 3b(the same rhetoric we got pre-season with Mancini and Hosmer types), too.

Edited July 27, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[We Got The Whole 9]

The Sox got a decent 50 prospect for Giolito. We could definitely use more of those. However I can't see Hoyer moving Stroman while the team is pushing .500, especially with how much he talks up the human side to roster construction. 

 

I've pretty much accepted that they won't be adding any meaningful prospects. I am really interested in seeing him clean up the 40 man issues we will face shortly though.

[Brock Beauchamp]

13 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I think TT is probably close to accurate on the trade front. I don't think trading Stroman or Bellinger is going to net them a game-changing player. Also, if they are buying, I don't think they will be dealing from the top 10 or so. There are a lot of OF redundant prospects, and a few IF and SP. So the way I see it now, buying or selling is nibbling at the margins. I think most people agree that the Cubs are not a strong team, and won't be after the deadline. But if they get into the playoffs, the playoffs are what they are. 

I agree that initially, it may not feel like a game-changing player in return... but PCA wasn't initially the game-changer he is today. Both Bellinger and Stroman carry the value of being able to bring back a piece that could turn into a game-changer.

But "could" and "will" are different words. 😁

[Tryptamine]

21 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

The Sox got a decent 50 prospect for Giolito. We could definitely use more of those. However I can't see Hoyer moving Stroman while the team is pushing .500, especially with how much he talks up the human side to roster construction. 

 

I've pretty much accepted that they won't be adding any meaningful prospects. I am really interested in seeing him clean up the 40 man issues we will face shortly though.

I actually kind of think that with Stroman pitching so badly over this stretch that maybe we've reached the point where the return isn't going to be worth not giving it a go for the division. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

8 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I agree that initially, it may not feel like a game-changing player in return... but PCA wasn't initially the game-changer he is today. Both Bellinger and Stroman carry the value of being able to bring back a piece that could turn into a game-changer.

But "could" and "will" are different words. 😁

If PCA(who was a unique case due to injury and immediately gave the Mets a permanent complex about trading prospects) debuts next year, it'll be 3 years after he was first acquired.  If Caissie debuts next year that would be 4 years since the Darvish trade.  There's always opportunity that you can get someone at lower levels with higher potential and try to develop that potential, and there is a virtue to optimizing for maximum talent over immediate need.  But Hoyer also probably doesn't have the job security to be that long-minded at this stage, and even the idea that you maximize assets so you can re-purpose them later(e.g. with an offseason buy trade) is one that is not in his strengths(he hasn't done it, and supposedly he hated the Quintana deal).

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

If PCA(who was a unique case due to injury and immediately gave the Mets a permanent complex about trading prospects) debuts next year, it'll be 3 years after he was first acquired.  If Caissie debuts next year that would be 4 years since the Darvish trade.  There's always opportunity that you can get someone at lower levels with higher potential and try to develop that potential, and there is a virtue to optimizing for maximum talent over immediate need.  But Hoyer also probably doesn't have the job security to be that long-minded at this stage, and even the idea that you maximize assets so you can re-purpose them later(e.g. with an offseason buy trade) is one that is not in his strengths(he hasn't done it, and supposedly he hated the Quintana deal).

I think that's a fair worry (and one I do share) however, I'm not sure that makes it right, either, if that makes sense.  Part of my concerns in general is how Hoyer will handle this.  I would say that if Hoyer is concerned with his long term prospects as VP of the Cubs than doing very little but holding his players (or adding a very small minor player like Cron or Candelario) isn't his best bet either.  Which is why I really would like the Cubs to select a lane.  

[We Got The Whole 9]

8 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I actually kind of think that with Stroman pitching so badly over this stretch that maybe we've reached the point where the return isn't going to be worth not giving it a go for the division. 

He's been awful for sure but you have to take the totality of the season into account. He's still been far better than Giolito, who btw has a 5 ERA and FIP over his last 5 starts.

 

Stroman's contract probably complicates things though. But the bottom line is that Stroman is still having a Stroman season. Just about every metric is pretty much in line with his career norms. He's never been an ace and has never put up an ERA under 3 in a full season. You get him for expected MORP production and the high GB rate/contact suppression. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

If PCA(who was a unique case due to injury and immediately gave the Mets a permanent complex about trading prospects) debuts next year, it'll be 3 years after he was first acquired.  If Caissie debuts next year that would be 4 years since the Darvish trade.  There's always opportunity that you can get someone at lower levels with higher potential and try to develop that potential, and there is a virtue to optimizing for maximum talent over immediate need.  But Hoyer also probably doesn't have the job security to be that long-minded at this stage, and even the idea that you maximize assets so you can re-purpose them later(e.g. with an offseason buy trade) is one that is not in his strengths(he hasn't done it, and supposedly he hated the Quintana deal).

Oh, I absolutely agree with all of this. I'm only pointing out that there IS a long-term risk involved in not trading Stroman and/or Bellinger.

That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, only that risk is involved.

I lean toward trading them both but as the Cubs keep winning, I find myself drifting more toward neutrality on it. There's still time to move the needle in one direction or the other.

One thing to keep in mind is that with the Angels now buying, the market is dried up even further. Maybe the return becomes irresistible if teams like the Padres or Mariners decide to stay in it. Or maybe the decision becomes a no-brainer to keep both if the Padres or Mariners start selling.

[champaignchris]

28 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

If PCA(who was a unique case due to injury and immediately gave the Mets a permanent complex about trading prospects) debuts next year, it'll be 3 years after he was first acquired.  If Caissie debuts next year that would be 4 years since the Darvish trade.  There's always opportunity that you can get someone at lower levels with higher potential and try to develop that potential, and there is a virtue to optimizing for maximum talent over immediate need.  But Hoyer also probably doesn't have the job security to be that long-minded at this stage, and even the idea that you maximize assets so you can re-purpose them later(e.g. with an offseason buy trade) is one that is not in his strengths(he hasn't done it, and supposedly he hated the Quintana deal).

I think Hoyer’s job security is less an issue than the fact that the Cubs roster seems to be set up to compete through 2026 based on the contracts they’ve given out. 
 

I think Hoyer will be trying to get assets that will contribute in that time frame, and I’m not sure Stroman or Bellinger will give you that. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

23 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think that's a fair worry (and one I do share) however, I'm not sure that makes it right, either, if that makes sense.  Part of my concerns in general is how Hoyer will handle this.  I would say that if Hoyer is concerned with his long term prospects as VP of the Cubs than doing very little but holding his players (or adding a very small minor player like Cron or Candelario) isn't his best bet either.  Which is why I really would like the Cubs to select a lane.  

Ah crap the board ate my draft reply, let me try to be more concise than I was in that one.

•  Taking the lower level/upside play often leaves you net negative on value too (see: Darvish)
•  I don't think they need to pick a lane outside of 'make 2024 better', and I think there's enough value in being seen as competitive(see: any Ohtani pursuit) that even the one potential big chip with negative 2024 value (Stroman) could be kept under that argument

My wish for the deadline would be to:

1. Keep Bellinger, you want the inside track on extending him and if not the benefits of having a QO'd FA are greater than rental returns

2. Only trade Stroman if you get someone who clearly fills a 2024 need, and not just is a decent player who will be MLB ready in 2024

3. Make a decisive trade for an underperforming/undervalued MLB player(s).  The FO did this so well during the build up to 2016(Fowler, Montero, Arrieta) and it's been missing while this go round has mostly rescued players from the margins of waivers(Wisdom, Leiter Jr).  They have a lot of different options that teams could potentially be interested in for this type of challenge trade, in particular the MLB infielders and AAA outfielders, and I think it's the type of trade that is most likely to be agreeable at this deadline too because no one is punting on 2024.

[squally1313]

Just throwing it out there that we could also like, try and win baseball games these next two months rather than making the team worse and symbolically waving the white flag in the hopes of getting a package similar to what the Sox just got (a fringe-y at best defensive catcher with a .332 slugging percentage and an almost 24 year old pitcher who has pitched all of 30 innings this year, most of them in AA, and gotten rocked in all of them). Don't think I'll be losing much sleep over not getting guys like that. 

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Just throwing it out there that we could also like, try and win baseball games these next two months rather than making the team worse and symbolically waving the white flag in the hopes of getting a package similar to what the Sox just got (a fringe-y at best defensive catcher with a .332 slugging percentage and an almost 24 year old pitcher who has pitched all of 30 innings this year, most of them in AA, and gotten rocked in all of them). Don't think I'll be losing much sleep over not getting guys like that. 

Point made, but you're severely underselling Quero. He's 20 years old in AA with a 17.1 BB% and and 16.5% and while the SLG hasn't showed up this year, he had a .530 at age 19 in A last year. 

[squally1313]

Like the people in camp 'this team isn't good enough' are basically saying a team that has played to a +48 RD in 101 games is just not worthy of getting a shot, and are only going to be satisfied with some juggernaut. And the argument essentially comes down to:

1. Take a slightly above .500 team

2. Make it worse to get prospects 

3. ??????????

4. Be a 95 win team, immediately apparently, because god forbid we're an 82 win team this time next year, then we'll have to go back to step one. 

 

[ILMindState]

22 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Ah crap the board ate my draft reply, let me try to be more concise than I was in that one.

•  Taking the lower level/upside play often leaves you net negative on value too (see: Darvish)
•  I don't think they need to pick a lane outside of 'make 2024 better', and I think there's enough value in being seen as competitive(see: any Ohtani pursuit) that even the one potential big chip with negative 2024 value (Stroman) could be kept under that argument

My wish for the deadline would be to:

1. Keep Bellinger, you want the inside track on extending him and if not the benefits of having a QO'd FA are greater than rental returns

2. Only trade Stroman if you get someone who clearly fills a 2024 need, and not just is a decent player who will be MLB ready in 2024

3. Make a decisive trade for an underperforming/undervalued MLB player(s).  The FO did this so well during the build up to 2016(Fowler, Montero, Arrieta) and it's been missing while this go round has mostly rescued players from the margins of waivers(Wisdom, Leiter Jr).  They have a lot of different options that teams could potentially be interested in for this type of challenge trade, in particular the MLB infielders and AAA outfielders, and I think it's the type of trade that is most likely to be agreeable at this deadline too because no one is punting on 2024.

This is along the lines of what I would like to see happen but it is also the most difficult scenario to pull off.

[Tryptamine]

15 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Like the people in camp 'this team isn't good enough' are basically saying a team that has played to a +48 RD in 101 games is just not worthy of getting a shot, and are only going to be satisfied with some juggernaut. And the argument essentially comes down to:

1. Take a slightly above .500 team

2. Make it worse to get prospects 

3. ??????????

4. Be a 95 win team, immediately apparently, because god forbid we're an 82 win team this time next year, then we'll have to go back to step one. 

 

If they're on 82 win pace next year something has gone terribly wrong and Jed is probably gone following the season.

[CubinNY]

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Like the people in camp 'this team isn't good enough' are basically saying a team that has played to a +48 RD in 101 games is just not worthy of getting a shot, and are only going to be satisfied with some juggernaut. And the argument essentially comes down to:

1. Take a slightly above .500 team

2. Make it worse to get prospects 

3. ??????????

4. Be a 95 win team, immediately apparently, because god forbid we're an 82 win team this time next year, then we'll have to go back to step one. 

 

3 - Off season - resign Bellinger (don't trade Bellinger), sign Chapman, Urias, Maneaea, Soler (DH) 

[Tryptamine]

7 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Back it up…How do they get into position to make 82+ wins a disappointment next year by selling this year? 

PCA in CF

Chapman at 3B

Mervis or FA at 1B

One of Urias/Nola/Yamamoto in the rotation

One of Brown/Wicks entering the rotation

[Hairyducked Idiot]

4 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

PCA in CF

Chapman at 3B

Mervis or FA at 1B

One of Urias/Nola/Yamamoto in the rotation

One of Brown/Wicks entering the rotation

Not all of those are even upgrades

[Transmogrified Tiger]

15 minutes ago, ILMindState said:

This is along the lines of what I would like to see happen but it is also the most difficult scenario to pull off.

Is it?  Getting a specific return for Stroman might be, but the plan here presupposes that you're fine with that not happening too.  Yes, buying low and having it pay off is an uncommon outcome by definition, but it also definitonally comes at a low cost.  If you trade for, I dunno, Bobby Dalbec, and he isn't any good that's not the preferred endgame, but the opportunity cost is lower and that risk exists for every type of acquisition(see: Heyward, Taillon, Quintana, Justin Wilson, etc)

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

PCA in CF

Chapman at 3B

Mervis or FA at 1B

One of Urias/Nola/Yamamoto in the rotation

One of Brown/Wicks entering the rotation

The first one replaces Stroman, at best. Is there any other option who has managed to post 4.00 ERA (or FIP) in AAA yet?

There's no one out there that's going to require PCA, so that's a moot point. So it's basically just, win the Chapman sweepstakes and hope Mervis hits (which is true in either scenario) because the FA options are dire.

[CubinNY]

10 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Ah, yes, just sign like, three of the top 5 free agents. Got it, thanks

that is not unreasonable given the Cubs resources.