8/14 - Off-Day Cubs Chatter

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Nobody's ever blocked unless they are literally ready to come up today and you can't find a spot for him at that exact moment.

We went from wondering ~2016 how we would ever use our incredible surplus of infield talent to giving David Bote 127 games in 2019.

[Nolansomebody]

10 hours ago, Derwood said:

I remain terrified of our starting pitching

Agreed. Rest of the team is improving, but the pitching has some cracks to fill.

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Right now that have nowhere to put him on the big league roster. If he blows up, I’m sure they find space, but he’s blocked at every position. They even used him in the outfield a few games. 

Shaw could play 3B or DH, plus 2B, and I guess SS in a pinch.  I doubt Madrigal is going to block him at 3B unless the Madrigal hitting revolution keeps up, which I doubt enough to block Shaw.

[chibears55]

5 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Yeah, it's not a bad contract, and he's probably trade-able if that's the direction they want to go.  He's fine and affordable and does some things really well, but he's also lacking in power that then needs to be made up elsewhere in the lineup.

Happ would make a good 4th OFer, but if they can move him for a good SP even if they need to eat some money or add a prospect, they should make that deal.

[squally1313]

4 hours ago, chibears55 said:

Happ would make a good 4th OFer, but if they can move him for a good SP even if they need to eat some money or add a prospect, they should make that deal.

I’m sorry what 

[squally1313]

Happ since the beginning of last year is the 13th best outfielder in baseball per fWAR. But yeah, good backup. 

[Rcal10]

12 hours ago, thawv said:

Agreed.  But who is going to want Happ or Suzuki, unless the Cubs pick up all or most of their contract?

What? Ian Happ is fine. He is hardly someone they can’t trade if they even wanted to trade. I am fine if they do trade him, but they don’t have to eat a contract to do it. I also doubt they would have to pick up most of Suzuki’s contract if they traded him. He hasn’t been great but he isn’t a black hole. I think you are being a bit over reactive here. 

[thawv]

23 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

What? Ian Happ is fine. He is hardly someone they can’t trade if they even wanted to trade. I am fine if they do trade him, but they don’t have to eat a contract to do it. I also doubt they would have to pick up most of Suzuki’s contract if they traded him. He hasn’t been great but he isn’t a black hole. I think you are being a bit over reactive here. 

I was more thinking of what kind of return we'd get.  I know that trade simulators are not the end all be all, but it's a decent place to start.  Happ has a surplus of 10 million, which is not bad, but the return wouldn't be much.  Suzuki has a surplus of -19 million, which tells me that even if they pick up his whole contract, it brings it down to zero surplus.  Happ's return should be a middling prospect on his own, and Suzuki would be very hard to move.  I'm not suggesting that they trade them, but IF a couple of these corners OF'ers are ready to step in, someone has to be moved.  Even if it's the prospect(s).  But I'd prefer to keep the younger cheaper guys.

Edited August 16, 2023 by thawv

[squally1313]

So the idea is to basically attach Ian Happ to Suzuki to and get nothing back, giving yourself two spots to fill, one of which has been manned by a pretty consistent 120 wRC guy who holds his own defensively. Because Matt Shaw is hitting well in high A. I’m sure PTR loves that plan! He can just set a reminder to trade Shaw in 2027 for the next prospect to take over for him. 

[thawv]

3 hours ago, squally1313 said:

So the idea is to basically attach Ian Happ to Suzuki to and get nothing back, giving yourself two spots to fill, one of which has been manned by a pretty consistent 120 wRC guy who holds his own defensively. Because Matt Shaw is hitting well in high A. I’m sure PTR loves that plan! He can just set a reminder to trade Shaw in 2027 for the next prospect to take over for him. 

That doesn't make any sense

[squally1313]

24 minutes ago, thawv said:

That doesn't make any sense

I know

[Rcal10]

5 hours ago, thawv said:

I was more thinking of what kind of return we'd get.  I know that trade simulators are not the end all be all, but it's a decent place to start.  Happ has a surplus of 10 million, which is not bad, but the return wouldn't be much.  Suzuki has a surplus of -19 million, which tells me that even if they pick up his whole contract, it brings it down to zero surplus.  Happ's return should be a middling prospect on his own, and Suzuki would be very hard to move.  I'm not suggesting that they trade them, but IF a couple of these corners OF'ers are ready to step in, someone has to be moved.  Even if it's the prospect(s).  But I'd prefer to keep the younger cheaper guys.

I mean, if they were to trade Happ why would it have to be for a prospect? Why not a baseball trade? Why not Happ, an everyday solid left fielder with 4 years on his contract, for a MOR starting pitcher who has some control left? I am not suggesting they do trade him. They could keep him or trade him, I am fine either way. I’m not fine with dealing for a prospect. Cubs need to dea prospects for players, not the other way around. Or, as I said, player for player. 
 

Also, stay away from those simulators. Makes for some crazy ideas because they work in the simulator. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

There's nothing wrong with using a site like BBTV as a tool, it's an external measurement that can be a starting point for understanding if a potential deal is feasible.  You still have to think about the other teams' needs, motivations, and opportunity costs though, which lots of users of that site seem to not bother with.

 

Anyway, they won't trade Happ is because he's a good player who they just intentionally extended, they aren't looking at Happ's 2023 and wondering 'what have we gotten ourselves into', this is what they signed up for. But most importantly when they signed him they gave him an NTC, and considering Happ is a union rep who took a potentially below market deal(at least in length) to stay where he wanted, he's not going to be itchy to leave.

[thawv]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I mean, if they were to trade Happ why would it have to be for a prospect? Why not a baseball trade? Why not Happ, an everyday solid left fielder with 4 years on his contract, for a MOR starting pitcher who has some control left? I am not suggesting they do trade him. They could keep him or trade him, I am fine either way. I’m not fine with dealing for a prospect. Cubs need to dea prospects for players, not the other way around. Or, as I said, player for player. 
 

Also, stay away from those simulators. Makes for some crazy ideas because they work in the simulator. 

Yes...they should be looking for major league players.  It's just the thinking for the last 4 years.  I'm going to have to stop that kind of thinking.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

Yes...they should be looking for major league players.  It's just the thinking for the last 4 years.  I'm going to have to stop that kind of thinking.

Well, I don’t even think they should trade Happ. And I know you like him too. That is why I don’t understand this conversation. But playing it out, if the Cubs do have this prospect knocking down the door to play the outfield and trading Happ to open that spot can also bring in a player at a position of need, I can see trading him. I just don’t see that prospect yet. I also don’t know if he will ever be there. Prospects flame out all the time. No need to worry about a spot at this point, and most likely not in the future. 
I am of the belief that if a prospect is good enough to play in the majors the team will find a spot. 

[thawv]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

Well, I don’t even think they should trade Happ. And I know you like him too. That is why I don’t understand this conversation. But playing it out, if the Cubs do have this prospect knocking down the door to play the outfield and trading Happ to open that spot can also bring in a player at a position of need, I can see trading him. I just don’t see that prospect yet. I also don’t know if he will ever be there. Prospects flame out all the time. No need to worry about a spot at this point, and most likely not in the future. 
I am of the belief that if a prospect is good enough to play in the majors the team will find a spot. 

My response was a response to "what if" a prospect was ready to join the team in the OF.  Something like that.  Of course my first thought was what to do with Happ or Suzuki.  

[chibears55]

5 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

There's nothing wrong with using a site like BBTV as a tool, it's an external measurement that can be a starting point for understanding if a potential deal is feasible.  You still have to think about the other teams' needs, motivations, and opportunity costs though, which lots of users of that site seem to not bother with.

 

Anyway, they won't trade Happ is because he's a good player who they just intentionally extended, they aren't looking at Happ's 2023 and wondering 'what have we gotten ourselves into', this is what they signed up for. But most importantly when they signed him they gave him an NTC, and considering Happ is a union rep who took a potentially below market deal(at least in length) to stay where he wanted, he's not going to be itchy to leave.

Im sure Happ is playing well under the expectation they had for him when they extended him, the Power/OPS is definitely not what they were looking for 21 per.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, chibears55 said:

Im sure Happ is playing well under the expectation they had for him when they extended him, the Power/OPS is definitely not what they were looking for 21 per.

I think “well under” is an exaggeration. Is he playing a little under what they hoped? Sure, a little. But he is a 2 WAR now. A good stretch by him puts him back around the 12O OPS+ with a WAR over 3 for the year. It isn’t like he is having this terrible season. 

[stitchface]

On 8/14/2023 at 4:37 PM, stitchface said:

Cubs next four series are: White Sox, Royals, Tigers, and Pirates.

Brewers: Dodgers, Rangers, Twins, Padres

 

Be good to make up some ground. Maybe go 8-4 and see Brewers go 5-6? 

nailed the 8-4. did not see the brewers going 8-3 especially after being swept in LA. So, cubs lose a half game. Guess will have to win head to head