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

[Tryptamine]

10 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Not all of those are even upgrades

Correct, but I also don't expect Taillon to be near as bad. So while the added FA pitcher probably wont be as good as Stroman was, 2024 Taillon will likely be substantially better than 2023 Taillon

[squally1313]

Just realized in this scenario we're writing off Bellinger too, so there goes most of the Chapman upgrade value. 

[squally1313]

Just now, CubinNY said:

that is not unreasonable given the Cubs resources.

You and I both know that it's unreasonable. Besides the fact that if they're willing to drop that much money (they aren't) and are able to beat out all the other teams that want top 5 FAs (they won't)....just skip the 31 year old third baseman, etc and go sign the best player on the planet.

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Hol’ up…They’re one 31 YO Matt Chapman and two Pick ‘Em FAs away from 82 wins being a disappointment but completely untenable now? No trades…Sitting out on the best player on the planet because that’s too big time for Chicago…Two rookie starters (or 1 + a no name FA 1B) who aren’t certain to hit…How is this team even a lock to be .500? 

 

Of course trade could be involved, it was a 30 second post to show that they very easily could get there. Also, that 31 year old Matt Chapman is playing at a 5.5/162 fWAR pace this year. 

[UMFan83]

4 hours ago, bukie said:

This is oddly the only trip to STL the Cubs will make this season, and also the last time the Cubs will play the Cardinals this year.

I was going to say thats really strange to only play a division opponent once on the road even with the new schedule format but forgot that the Cardinals sacrificed one of their home series for the London trip.  I'll take it!

[ILMindState]

15 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

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)

It's more difficult because if you hold onto Belli and trade Stroman you're not picking a single lane.  You have to find enough value to improve the team while trading away your best starting pitcher.  Yeah it's possible but it's going to be more difficult to improve the team for 2023 by trading Stroman.  But I'm fine with that outcome if it means the team improves for 2024 and beyond.

[Outshined_One]

If the Cubs are going to play the "sellers, but still competitors" card, I think it comes down to two factors with Stroman and Bellinger:

1. Can the Cubs replace Stroman's spot in the rotation effectively?  Wesneski probably has the inside track for this spot, but you're asking a lot of a guy who hasn't hit 100 IP in the majors yet. It's a huge roll of the dice, especially since I don't think it would be reasonable to hotshot the callups of guys like Brown, Wicks, and Horton.  Unless the Cubs can pull off a trade for a SP with control, or they luck out with replacing Stroman in-house, trading Stroman would likely be a substantial net negative for 2023.
2. Can the Cubs get a better package of prospects than they'd get with a QO with Bellinger?  There's been a lot of discussion about calling up PCA to replace Bellinger (not a fan), but I think the OF can be restructured in-house without the offense falling to pieces without Bellinger in the lineup.

Of course, if some team wants to be insane and do something like trade two Top 100 prospects for either, that would definitely alter the equation.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 minutes ago, ILMindState said:

It's more difficult because if you hold onto Belli and trade Stroman you're not picking a single lane.  You have to find enough value to improve the team while trading away your best starting pitcher.  Yeah it's possible but it's going to be more difficult to improve the team for 2023 by trading Stroman.  But I'm fine with that outcome if it means the team improves for 2024 and beyond.

I didn't say anything about improving the team in 2023.  To make that point more clearly:

• The Cubs are about what we thought, a .500 team give or take depending on variance
• While the current winning streak is fun, they still have long odds to make the playoffs
• Even with those long odds, there's still value in not stripping the team for parts simply because a 2022 Phillies run is unlikely
• If you are making trades though, 2023 improvements are secondary/optional compared to 2024 improvements, which are required

[Transmogrified Tiger]

8 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

I was going to say thats really strange to only play a division opponent once on the road even with the new schedule format but forgot that the Cardinals sacrificed one of their home series for the London trip.  I'll take it!

This season has been such a disaster for the Cardinals(and I guess disappointing enough for the Cubs) that even with them only coming here once this season I just bought tickets for Sunday the other day for $13, direct from the team and including fees.

[JD94]

2 hours 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.  

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.  

Totally agree with all of this. I know most Cubs fans want to stand pat or buy at some capacity just because they want to watch a team that’s actually trying to win down the stretch here. And I totally get it after 3 straight years of selling at the deadline. 
 

To me though, as much as I’d like to watch a mediocre Cubs team try and back door into the playoffs, I think the future is more important. I trust Jed and those guys to get a solid return back for our assets. They’ve done it with everybody to this point. There’s no reason to think they can’t also do it with Stroman and Bellinger plus Gomes and the rest of the lower tier guys. I mean Jed got Ben Brown for David Robertson. We should probably trust him and Dan when it comes to trades. 
 

If you want Bellinger back, just give him the most money. That’s all it comes down to… if that’s what Jed wants to do. I think selling is the way to go here. Again, I would love to watch them try to sneak in the playoffs, but this is a very mediocre team. They are beating up on teams as bad or worse than them right now. I just would hate to risk losing Belli and Stro for nothing but a comp pick and we still miss the playoffs all for nothing. Which I think is a more likely outcome than sneaking into the playoffs anyways even if we kept everybody. 
 

Im sure my opinion is not popular. I’m not looking to debate everybody on if standing pat is mortgaging the future or not. I just believe we are better in the long run selling off one last time. Get near ready guys to add to our own near ready prospects and spend like crazy in FA. Trade from prospect depth in the offseason to acquire a good young MLB player. 

[squally1313]

I just don't think the future potential upside outweighs the value of giving the rest of this year a shot. We make these trades, we just add to this glut of 40-50 FV prospects, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but we aren't going to add impact talent. And then you're going to get, what, 6 weeks of play in our system to make some determinations before you need to make some serious roster decisions? And if we're in late July and there are only like, 6 teams in sell mode, how many are you going to find in the offseason willing to trade real MLB talent for a bunch of minor league potential? 

[mul21]

I think the glut of good not great prospects is something that can't be overstated considering the 40 man crunch they'll be in this offseason.  They're definitely in this weird purgatory and I just hope Jed et al are creative enough to use some of that surplus in a useful way, whether that's adding a prospect or two to a Stroman trade to get an upper level well regarded prospect or if it's just packaging prospects to shore up the pen (with hopefully a player that has some additional years of control). 

[Derwood]

Talk trade stuff here, nerds

[Jason Ross]

2 hours 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 no shot at you personally, but I would despise this kind of a deadline.  This is the thread the needle nonsense they've been flirting with for a bit.  The Chicago Cubs are a top-5 market and realistically need to stop acting like a reclamation team.  Especially if they're keeping Bellinger and Stroman.  If you're keeping them you're shooting for the playoffs, and 2 months of reclamations isn't enough time to make a true determination.  So we enter 2024 with more of these projects...some might work out, most will either marginally work out or will fail.  I think a "hold+under performing MLB" deadline is probably the worst case outcome; it banks on this flawed Cubs roster making the playoffs and it doesn't give you enough time to properly evaluate the under performers for 2024.  So you really can create a whole host of new questions instead of solving anything.   These feel like trades you make in December, not really in July.  So while I don't think they're a bad idea on their own, as a July-deadline trade they feel out of place.  

 

Sometimes trades for non-elite-today prospects don't work out, but I'm also not advocating the Cubs buy half a HS prep lineup like they did in the case of Darvish.  There's middle ground between 18 year Olds with zero professional PAs and players in high A with a few hundred PAs of data.  In fact, the QO play is a lot closer to that (you'd be likely targeting prep hitters or arms with those picks and slot).  The Cubs should be able to do considerably better selling on those two and 18 year Olds.  I'm not entirely sure exactly what to expect for either, the deadline is a fickle lady and teams can get swept up, or decide to just stand pat, at a whim, so I'll avoid offering names (especially with the Cubs and how they choose MiLB talents off the radar).  These can be prospects that are used to restock the system as the Cubs use their prospect depth in the offseason to grab some actual talent.  Or players used to aid those trades.  The Cubs do have a ton of talent in the MiLB, but it can't be a bad thing overall and can be used in many ways.  

 

As stated I feel like the Cubs need to pick a lane for once.  Thread the needle rarely works and I think we have enough information these last few seasons to show it might not be Hoyer's strong suit.  I'm not sure he's aggressive enough for a lane in which we actually upgrade the team either, but I'm not sure it's to be seen he can't either.  I'm very firmly I'm the camp that the Cubs either need to get max value today for the Bellingers/Stroman/Gomes types and then commit to Amaya, Mervis, and a few on the cusp younger players, or they need to add players who will actually support these players to make a true Playoff push.  I can't see many outcomes where the middle ground pays off in any way for the Cubs except for, maybe, Tom Ricketts profit lines.  It might be slightly more fun for us, but long term Cub success...I'm just not that does anything.  

Edited July 27, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[JD94]

Thanks for this thread. It’s hard to keep up with rumors and what not because they get posted in multiple different threads, so I never know where to look. It’s hard to scour Twitter all day at work and keep up, so I look here most of the time. 

[17 Seconds]

bring back the transactions subforum 

[Derwood]

4 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

bring back the transactions subforum 

I agree. I'm not really clicking with these daily "articles" about rumors and such. Just put it all in one place

[Transmogrified Tiger]

15 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This is no shot at you personally, but I would despise this kind of a deadline.  This is the thread the needle nonsense they've been flirting with for a bit.  The Chicago Cubs are a top-5 market and realistically need to stop acting like a reclamation team.  Especially if they're keeping Bellinger and Stroman.  If you're keeping them you're shooting for the playoffs, and 2 months of reclamations isn't enough time to make a true determination.  So we enter 2024 with more of these projects...some might work out, most will either marginally work out or will fail.  I think a "hold+under performing MLB" deadline is probably the worst case outcome; it banks on this flawed Cubs roster making the playoffs and it doesn't give you enough time to properly evaluate the under performers for 2024.  So you really can create a whole host of new questions instead of solving anything.   These feel like trades you make in December, not really in July.  So while I don't think they're a bad idea on their own, as a July-deadline trade they feel out of place.

 

I alluded to this above(I think that's still this thread?), but I think 'thread the needle implies' that they're trying to get the best of both worlds and make both 2023 and 2024 better.  While that's far from impossible I'm not saying that's the goal.  The Cubs have very low playoff odds for 2023, they have been very low for a while and even if they aren't a bad team they shouldn't make moves with 2023 in mind.  What I keep reiterating about this deadline is that 1) they should be trying to prioritize 2024 with any moves because of the roster window recent FA + extensions have created 2) trading away players for what you can get is not really the best way to prioritize 2024 in this situation.  This especially applies to Bellinger(and Gomes since you mention him), and there are arguments you can apply it to Stroman as well depending on the details(how high the still-bad playoff odds are, what Stroman's market is).

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I mentioned this in another reply(I think it was this thread), but I think 'thread the needle implies' that they're trying to get the best of both worlds and make both 2023 and 2024 better.  While that's far from impossible I'm not saying that's the goal.  The Cubs have very low playoff odds for 2023, they have been very low for a while and even if they aren't a bad team they shouldn't make moves with 2023 in mind.  What I keep reiterating about this deadline is that 1) they should be trying to prioritize 2024 with any moves because of the roster window recent FA + extensions have created 2) trading away players for what you can get is not really the best way to prioritize 2024 in this situation.  This especially applies to Bellinger(and Gomes since you mention him), and there are arguments you can apply it to Stroman as well depending on the details(how high the still-bad playoff odds are, what Stroman's market is).

I think you'd be be very hard pressed to prioritize 2024 at this deadline, which is I think where our impass is at.  I don't think you can realistically add the type of players the Cubs need in 2024 now.  I think you can maybe grab underperforming players; but 2 months just isn't enough to make these players interesting to me in 2024; that's more of the same of 2021 and 2022.  I don't think trading Bellinger changes his status with the Cubs in 2024; he's a Boras client...he's hitting the market.  I think you'd need to pay him best deal on the market in December regardless of trading him and I don't think trading him changes that relationship.  I think the same with Stroman.  I don't think holding on to Bellinger or Stroman through November changes 2024, either.  You can still resign both.  I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's likely they'll resign them before the FA period regardless (they've had plenty of time) either. Which is why I'd prefer to sell them now (if they're not going to upgrade around them)...the QOs, while better than nothing, likely won't trump the return they can get.  

I fully agree the Cubs need to make 2024 happen.  I just don't think holding Stroman or Bellinger changes that equation at all.  

Edited July 27, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[squally1313]

11 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think you'd be be very hard pressed to prioritize 2024 at this deadline, which is I think where our impass is at.  I don't think you can realistically add the type of players the Cubs need in 2024 now.  I think you can maybe grab underperforming players; but 2 months just isn't enough to make these players interesting to me in 2024; that's more of the same of 2021 and 2022.  I don't think trading Bellinger changes his status with the Cubs in 2024; he's a Boras client...he's hitting the market.  I think you'd need to pay him best deal on the market in December regardless of trading him and I don't think trading him changes that relationship.  I think the same with Stroman.  I don't think holding on to Bellinger or Stroman through November changes 2024, either.  You can still resign both.  I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's likely they'll resign them before the FA period regardless (they've had plenty of time) either. Which is why I'd prefer to sell them now (if they're not going to upgrade around them)...the QOs, while better than nothing, likely won't trump the return they can get.  

I fully agree the Cubs need to make 2024 happen.  I just don't think holding Stroman or Bellinger changes that equation at all.  

Two points here:

1. Repeating myself from another thread, but if you give up on the year and  trade Bellinger as a .500 team, there's no way it's a good look for us when it comes to trying to sign him in the offseason, as obviously signing him by itself just brings you back to a .500 team.

2. Especially hard pass on being sellers if you can't meaningfully improve the 2024 team. I'll take the 15-20% shot this year over someone's 5th best prospect that might help us in 2025. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

19 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think you'd be be very hard pressed to prioritize 2024 at this deadline, which is I think where our impass is at.  I don't think you can realistically add the type of players the Cubs need in 2024 now.  I think you can maybe grab underperforming players; but 2 months just isn't enough to make these players interesting to me in 2024; that's more of the same of 2021 and 2022.  I don't think trading Bellinger changes his status with the Cubs in 2024; he's a Boras client...he's hitting the market.  I think you'd need to pay him best deal on the market in December regardless of trading him and I don't think trading him changes that relationship.  I think the same with Stroman.  I don't think holding on to Bellinger or Stroman through November changes 2024, either.  You can still resign both.  I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's likely they'll resign them before the FA period regardless (they've had plenty of time) either. Which is why I'd prefer to sell them now (if they're not going to upgrade around them)...the QOs, while better than nothing, likely won't trump the return they can get.  

I fully agree the Cubs need to make 2024 happen.  I just don't think holding Stroman or Bellinger changes that equation at all.  

 

Either the thread split/merge is glitching or I'm losing my mind and somehow quoting in the wrong thread.  Both seem possible at this point.

 

I have a hard time buying that it's not possible to find 2024 contributors.  Heck they technically did it last year with McKinstry, and other teams did without trading players that were appreciably different than who the Cubs could potentially be trading.  The Angels turned Syndegaard's expiring deal into Moniak, the Yankees and Cardinals both got next year contributors from the Bader/Montgomery deal, the Pirates and Cardinals both got next year contributors in the Quintana deal, and that's not including teams that got 2023 contributions from yet-to-debut prospects.  Does the Cubs 2024 success hinge on finding a poor-performing major leaguer and making them into a 5 win player?  No, but at the same time uncommon success requires uncommon things happening, and a deadline where very few are giving up on 2023 and no one is giving up on 2024 means that type of player is the most likely potential 2024 contributor to be available.

 

As for Bellinger, we can agree to disagree about that cause I don't want to belabor a previous point.  It's not about the value of the pick itself, it's the flexibility it affords you in FA without kneecapping your total draft resources.  Stroman I'm more open minded about trading, but I also see some benefit in signaling the intent to be competitive by keeping him(plus he's technically under contract in 2024), so I'm not going to see it as pass/fail that he needs to go.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Two points here:

1. Repeating myself from another thread, but if you give up on the year and  trade Bellinger as a .500 team, there's no way it's a good look for us when it comes to trying to sign him in the offseason, as obviously signing him by itself just brings you back to a .500 team.

2. Especially hard pass on being sellers if you can't meaningfully improve the 2024 team. I'll take the 15-20% shot this year over someone's 5th best prospect that might help us in 2025. 

Cody Bellinger is a Scott Boras client.  I don't believe for half a second trading him changes his contract in 2024.  Cody Bellinger is going to sign the best contract offered to him.  If the Cubs want Cody Bellinger, they need only to do that.  If you're worried about the Cubs offering him the best deal, and hoping he'd resign here for not the best contract because we kept him and won 82 games...than I think we have to accept he's not signing here.  

On the second point, any prospect we acquire may not help until 2025.  But they may also make it more likely to trade someone we do have, create additional prospect depth, or may be apart of other trades this offseason to add players for the 2024 season.  A QO cannot do that.  They're neither tradable prior to being picked, nor will be capable of being traded until next winter post-draft.  

I'm very much of the opinion that the Cubs need to begin acting like a team dedicated to winning.  Now, not later.  But I don't think trading Bellinger or Stroman effectively change 2024 unless they're going to resign either of them pre-FA and I think that ship has sailed.  If the Cubs want to keep them here this summer, than I'd prefer them not half-ass it.  

[squally1313]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

 

I'm very much of the opinion that the Cubs need to begin acting like a team dedicated to winning.  Now, not later.   

I don't want to reduce your whole post to this line, but you can't say this and then continue advocating for trading two of our four best players and giving up on the next two months of baseball. The current baseball team is 12-6 in their last 18 games. Not sure what else you're looking for. Go do things to make them more likely to win now, not in 2025. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I don't want to reduce your whole post to this line, but you can't say this and then continue advocating for trading two of our four best players and giving up on the next two months of baseball. The current baseball team is 12-6 in their last 18 games. Not sure what else you're looking for. Go do things to make them more likely to win now, not in 2025. 

Well, I think it's pretty unfair to reduce it, because I literally said at the end, that if the Cubs want to keep them this summer, than they can't half-ass it.  That alludes to the Cubs adding players between now and August 2nd who are going to help.  And, again, I've said it plenty now, I'm 100% of the belief that trading these two doesn't change 2024.  They're FAs.  I would agree, it'd be weird to talk 2024 and trade two of your best players, but only if they were contracted in 2024.  Bellinger and Stroman will be FAs (no way Stroman opts in barring injury, IMO).  If the Cubs were going to resign them midyear, well, they'd have resigned them by now more than likely.  If the Cubs still want to resign them, than they simply need to offer them the best contract in the offseason.  I doubt either holds a shred of animosity in the offseason over it.  

The Cubs are playing much better, but I think we need to remember that they have a long road to climb, and things are neither as good as they feel during great runs (conversely never as bad as they feel during poor runs).  The team is still largely what they've been all year; a roughly .500 team who has many flaws but who plays in a bad division.  They can't sit pat and expect to be more.  So either add a few players designed to legitimately make the playoffs realistic or sell the two FAs.  I can buy arguments on either side.  

[Jason Ross]

32 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

 

Either the thread split/merge is glitching or I'm losing my mind and somehow quoting in the wrong thread.  Both seem possible at this point.

 

I have a hard time buying that it's not possible to find 2024 contributors.  Heck they technically did it last year with McKinstry, and other teams did without trading players that were appreciably different than who the Cubs could potentially be trading.  The Angels turned Syndegaard's expiring deal into Moniak, the Yankees and Cardinals both got next year contributors from the Bader/Montgomery deal, the Pirates and Cardinals both got next year contributors in the Quintana deal, and that's not including teams that got 2023 contributions from yet-to-debut prospects.  Does the Cubs 2024 success hinge on finding a poor-performing major leaguer and making them into a 5 win player?  No, but at the same time uncommon success requires uncommon things happening, and a deadline where very few are giving up on 2023 and no one is giving up on 2024 means that type of player is the most likely potential 2024 contributor to be available.

 

As for Bellinger, we can agree to disagree about that cause I don't want to belabor a previous point.  It's not about the value of the pick itself, it's the flexibility it affords you in FA without kneecapping your total draft resources.  Stroman I'm more open minded about trading, but I also see some benefit in signaling the intent to be competitive by keeping him(plus he's technically under contract in 2024), so I'm not going to see it as pass/fail that he needs to go.

Damnit, lost my draft myself.  

 

Quick response:

1. I don't think the Cubs will find it impossible to add players who might help in 2024, but there just isn't enough time for the underperforming crowd to fix their issues and show improvement enough to make me want to pencil them into 2024 conifedently.  The Cubs need to turn a corner from being the reclamation team to a confidently good roster.  I don't mind them kind of doing that with the BP, because BP arms are just volatile in general, but I think that's where it needs to remain confined.

2.  My last piece on Bellinger and the QO is this; the Cubs should never be afraid to drop a contract and sign a QO player.  2nd round picks are valuable, but not so valuable the Cubs should feel the need to keep Bellinger so they feel better about their draft budget.  The Cubs also have a deep enough system currently, that losing a draft pick via FA shouldn't change their system much.  Plus, we can view the prospects acquired for Bellinger as their 2nd round pick.  I'm the biggest draft dork in the world but draft flexibility outside of the 1st round is more of a luxury (these picks just hit so infrequently). I'd prioritize winning.

Edited July 27, 2023 by 1908_Cubs