Going somewhere, Soto? Yes, to the Yankees

[Stratos]

13 hours ago, Bertz said:

First, where are you getting 2024 projections?  Fangraphs doesn't have them up yet, unless you're looking at the 2024 ZiPS projections that were done prior to this season?  Don't do that those are woefully out of date at this point.

But we can math out this defense angle too.  And spoiler alert, it still says the team is substantially improved adding Soto over basically any alternative (sans Ohtani)

Juan Soto was 45 runs better than an average hitter last year.  That's right around his three year average (46 runs).  On defense, he was either -8 or -6 last year depending on your source.  His 3 year average is -5 or -2 respectively, but we'll assume the worst and say what he did last year is the baseline.  Oh and let's take it a step further and debit him for the extra time at DH Happ and Suzuki are going to have.  Both guys are a couple runs above average, so let's say the defensive cost for Soto is a flat -10 runs.  That means that net he's producing ~35 runs above average per year.  Let's compare that to some alternatives:

Christopher Morel - +10 runs of offense last year but scaling up to about +15 if he had played a full year.  But keep in mind unless he magically figures out 3B no defensive value

Pete Alonso - A +15 hitter last year, but closer to +25 over the lat 3.  He's also a slight plus at 1B so let's just say +25 to have a nice round number

Cody Bellinger - He's a +5 defender at either 1st or CF.  He was a +24 hitter last year, but deep into the negative the two years before that

Matt Chapman - A +5ish hitter and a +10ish defender.  And I'd give him some extra credit given how thin 3B is both on the FA market and in the org currently 

So even if you look at defense Soto (or Ohtani, the math is all pretty similar for him) is easily the most impactful move the team can make this winter.  He's not a perfect positional fit, far from it, but thanks to the depth on the roster and the fact that there's enough resources this offseason for a second bat that concern is pretty muted.

The perfect move this offseason would have been Rafael Devers, but unfortunately he's a cautionary tale of "you can't just wait for the perfect time to add whoever you want."

See my recent reply to Transmogrified Tiger.

In short, we can't just use those run totals, you have to adjust run value for defensive position a player plays.  A DH is worth -17.5 runs, a LF or RF is worth -7.5 runs.  Soto will mostly DH for us.  fWAR already adjusts value for position played.

2024 projections were my own, you're right they aren't out yet.  Projecting Morel for around 2.5 fWAR (if he plays a full season) and Soto for about 5.5 WAR seems pretty fair. and accurate.  For record, I'm worried about Bellinger going forward because his expected BA and SLG stats are greatly below what he put up in 2023....everything he hit seemed to find a hole, so I think luck was a factor.  His 2023 xSLG is shockingly around .430, which is around 100 points below what he put up.

Anyways, see my reply to Tiger, I'm not against a Soto trade even on 1-year, but we shouldn't be removing talent from the MLB roster on a win-now move, we should be taking it from prospects in the minors who won't contribute in 2024.  Morel was the 3rd best hitter (wRC+) on the team last year, and will probably continue to improve, his wRC+ went up 10 points from last year.

[thawv]

4 hours ago, Stratos said:

See my recent reply to Transmogrified Tiger.

In short, we can't just use those run totals, you have to adjust run value for defensive position a player plays.  A DH is worth -17.5 runs, a LF or RF is worth -7.5 runs.  Soto will mostly DH for us.  fWAR already adjusts value for position played.

2024 projections were my own, you're right they aren't out yet.  Projecting Morel for around 2.5 fWAR (if he plays a full season) and Soto for about 5.5 WAR seems pretty fair. and accurate.  For record, I'm worried about Bellinger going forward because his expected BA and SLG stats are greatly below what he put up in 2023....everything he hit seemed to find a hole, so I think luck was a factor.  His 2023 xSLG is shockingly around .430, which is around 100 points below what he put up.

Anyways, see my reply to Tiger, I'm not against a Soto trade even on 1-year, but we shouldn't be removing talent from the MLB roster on a win-now move, we should be taking it from prospects in the minors who won't contribute in 2024.  Morel was the 3rd best hitter (wRC+) on the team last year, and will probably continue to improve, his wRC+ went up 10 points from last year.

I completely understand all of this.  But AFTER a player is already signed, it really no longer matters.  

Last year, Soto was -8 runs prevented, and -9 OAA.  So defensively, he cost his team 8 runs, and 9 outs.  By simply getting him out of the OF and having him DH increases his field value to the team.  I believe that positional adjustment only really works if a player is a positive defensive player.  Taking a positive defensive player and pulling him off the field to be the DH, hurts the field value for the team.  If a guy is costing them runs and outs while being out there, by removing him and having him just hit, obviously helps the field value for the team. 

There's nothing value wise that's negative by taking a great hitter, who loses value because of his defensive, and not having him play defensive anymore.  All his negative value is now removed from the equation.  He's now more valuable.   He has more value to the team by DH'ing, and not playing OF.

[Rex Buckingham]

Trading Morel for Soto doesn't remove talent from our MLB roster. It IMPROVES the talent of our MLB roster, at the (not insignificant) cost of money and maybe an additional minor leaguer or 2

[Transmogrified Tiger]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

The issue with the Cubs isn't spending and payroll, they spent enough last year to win and will again this year, their issue in 2023 was efficiency.  They desperately need more surplus and efficiency.  They clearly overspent on Mancini and Smyly who were terrible, Barnhart also, Fulmer/Boxberger plus Rowan Wick/Adrian Sampson were busts, Taillon underperformed pretty badly in his first year, Rios and Hosmer were crap, Stroman arguably under-performed, and Heyward and Bote provided nothing for the millions they made.  That's almost half the payroll in either under-performance or total waste.

Would very much disagree with this.  Every season will have a handful of players who underperform, that's variance and not a solvable problem.  The Cubs return over 10 players who on a full season basis were in the 1.5+ fWAR range last year, plus a Top 25 prospect in PCA and some additional depth who they may want to give another chance to(Canario, Mervis).  They are not in a position to try to paper value over a larger number of roster spots, they're in a position where there are a maximum of 3 open lineup spots they need to maximize impact from.   And more to the point, what do you think the marginal cost of a win is if you think 33 million for Soto 'arguably still has some surplus'?  It's a bit over 20 million in surplus, which if we consult a 3rd party source like BBTV is coincidentally the surplus we'd expect from Morel over his team control.

[Jason Ross]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

The # of good defenders on the team already is not relevant, nor the number with "well-rounded profiles". What matters is the total value of all the players on the team in terms of creating and preventing runs.  Soto is a 5-6 WAR player, his value is 5-6 wins above a replacement player, it doesn't really matter how it breaks down.  If he DH'ing for the Cubs, which he will most of the time, his value/WAR drops because it's easier to replace a DH than any other position.  According to fangraphs, a LF (or RF) is penalized -7.5 runs in value, and a DH is worth -17.5 runs:  https://blogs.fangraphs.com/explaining-win-values-part-three/

The issue with the Cubs isn't spending and payroll, they spent enough last year to win and will again this year, their issue in 2023 was efficiency.  They desperately need more surplus and efficiency.  They clearly overspent on Mancini and Smyly who were terrible, Barnhart also, Fulmer/Boxberger plus Rowan Wick/Adrian Sampson were busts, Taillon underperformed pretty badly in his first year, Rios and Hosmer were crap, Stroman arguably under-performed, and Heyward and Bote provided nothing for the millions they made.  That's almost half the payroll in either under-performance or total waste.

They got surplus from Nico, Steele, Happ, Bellinger, plus a few pen guys and less significant players (Assad, Morel, Tauchman etc), but the pen was useless at holding leads half the year because they didn't spent enough on late-inning depth.  The difference between 2016 and 2023 wasn't payroll, it was efficiency and surplus.  The whole point of being a GM is squeezing as many wins out of every million spent as possible.

I'm not at all against a Soto trade, even on a 1-year, but trading our DH (who can also play middle INF and potentially 3B) who was 3rd on the team in wRC+ last year for a much better DH plus the cost of 33m is not the impact move I think some people think it is.  Soto at 33m arguably still has some surplus, it's a good acquisition.  But Soto on a 1-year is a win-now move so we need as much MLB talent and surplus as possible in 2024, so as i've said they should trade a prospect that won't contribute in 2024, like Triantos or Arias, or Rojas etc., not trading away our 3rd best hitter (#2 now that Bellinger is FA) who makes league minimum.

Not every move needs to be a min-max situation, and we have to accept that efficiency, while great, cannot always be achieved at it's highest level. The reality of efficiency is that it's way easier to achieve on low-cost acquisitions, and it's next to impossible to achieve when it comes to elite talent. Why? There's just so many cheap options to snatch up easily, and so very few elite talents. It creates a supply-and-demand market that creates inefficient outcome; either via trade or by FA signing. I don't disagree, I hated the Mancini, the Barnhart and the Smyly deals last year. I still do; I think they were significantly bad bets at "raising" the floor with players who statistically had red flags abound. I also don't think they have much to do with Juan Soto. 

Christopher Morel may represent an "inefficient" trade at the end, but not so ridiculous that it's not worth the cost of entry. Unless he's going to be a 3b, he's likely to continue to return around 1.5-2.0 fWAR or so value at DH unless he takes a big step forward offensively. So that's, what, 10 fWAR over 5 years? Juan Soto should return 5 of that in one. I'd actually say the two are very equal to each other, actually, when we consider the spread. For example, 5 fWAR in one season is much better than 2.5 fWAR over 2 years. @Bertzdid a really good job highlighting, as well, just how much better offensively Juan Soto is than Christopher Morel. They're magnitudes apart.

Just because the Cubs trade Morel for Soto (and likely some extra prospect) doesn't mean that they can't/won't continue to upgrade or still won't trade those same prospects for other players. It doesn't mean on Opening Day Morel would have still been the "third" best hitter on the Cubs. None of these things are mutually exclusive. If you can get Juan Soto for a (mostly) headlined Christopher Morel package, you should probably do it unless you're truly a believer of Christopher Morel being successful at 3b.

Edited October 31, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Cuzi]

Bertz's post also suggests that the player to get is Alonso instead of Soto if you are aiming for 2024. You'd keep Morel because the opportunity cost is going to be much cheaper and 25 + 15 > 35 and you save about $10M to spread to other needs to improve the team for that 1 year.

I would have no problem selling out for Soto if I had any faith in the Cubs making that investment worthwhile, instead of a stunt.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Cuzi

[Jason Ross]

I don't think the Cubs will pull a "stunt" as I cannot imagine Jed Hoyer would just give away Christopher Morel to sell more tickets for Tom Ricketts. I also don't think the rumors are stunts, there's too much smoke for me to think the Cubs don't have some legitimate interest outside of "just rile the fans up for a hot minute". Not saying I think it's going down the way the rumors may suggest, just that I think this is some level past "make fans happy, leak some Soto stuff".

I do have questions about their ability to identify useful MLB helpers and upgrades (just about every "raise the floor" player tanked last year and while they've been good at BP arm acquisitions, they've kind of failed at every reclamation project that wasn't Bellinger on the offensive side), questions about Tom Ricketts ability and willingness to spend, etc. But I think the Cubs using Morel to trade for a stunt feels like doomsday fan conspiracy stuff. If the Cubs wanted to pull stunts, they'd bring back old fan favorites or stuff like that, and this just doesn't fit that. Hoyer, if anything, has been conversative when it comes to trades. Giving up 5 years of a useful player just to sell some tickets for the owner feels out of his wheelhouse. Because of that, I'm not worried about an actual stunt here. I do believe there's some legitimacy and earnestness here.

Between Alonso and Soto, you could make an argument for Alonso and spreading out the $10m, but I'm a little hesitant to worry much about $10m extra. On the free market, that's little over an extra win purchasing power and I'm not sure that's worth the difference between Alonso and Soto (which historically has been 2-3 fWAR or so). 

In the end, I'm still hoping for Juan Soto over Pete Alonso. I think both are about as likely to extend as the other (both are Scott Boras) once a trade happens, but I'm more confident in the Cubs paying for Juan Soto than Pete Alonso, as well based on his age. And I like that the idea of Soto would allow the Cubs to still make a 2nd trade with prospect capital (though how likely that is comes down to concerns about Hoyer's aggressivity. I'd feel better about him being aggressive if he made a trade for Juan Soto, so it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, too). Not to say I can't see where a Pete Alonso argument makes sense, just my feelings and opinions on it.

Edited October 31, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Bertz's post also suggests that the player to get is Alonso instead of Soto if you are aiming for 2024. You'd keep Morel because the opportunity cost is going to be much cheaper and 25 + 15 > 35 and you save about $10M to spread to other needs to improve the team for that 1 year.

I would have no problem selling out for Soto if I had any faith in the Cubs making that investment worthwhile, instead of a stunt.

If the Cubs FO is committed to keep Soto here long term I have no issues with Morel + for Soto. But the + has to be lowered end prospects, not top 10 guys. Not because I feel all of them will be good, but because if they went in on Soto and are serious about winning they will need those other guys to get more talent. If this is “the move” and for one year, there is no reason to make this deal. They have to add. 

I also do feel if the Cubs FO feels Morel can play 3rd that might change the dynamics of a possible deal. This is a totally different discussion about Morel depending on if he is a 3rd baseman or DH. 

[Cuzi]

I think we can throw the hope of Morel playing 3B on the Cubs in the trash by now. If it was going to happen it would have happened this year. Instead, the Cubs chose to work with a player that had never played 3B in his entire pro career and doesn't profile at all for the position and his name was Nick Madrigal.

This FO value's defense on the infield above all. Morel has only proven to not be a liability at 2B. Morel is the DH and will moonlight around the diamond sporadically.

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I don't think the Cubs will pull a "stunt" as I cannot imagine Jed Hoyer would just give away Christopher Morel to sell more tickets for Tom Ricketts. I also don't think the rumors are stunts, there's too much smoke for me to think the Cubs don't have some legitimate interest outside of "just rile the fans up for a hot minute". Not saying I think it's going down the way the rumors may suggest, just that I think this is some level past "make fans happy, leak some Soto stuff".

I do have questions about their ability to identify useful MLB helpers and upgrades (just about every "raise the floor" player tanked last year and while they've been good at BP arm acquisitions, they've kind of failed at every reclamation project that wasn't Bellinger on the offensive side), questions about Tom Ricketts ability and willingness to spend, etc. But I think the Cubs using Morel to trade for a stunt feels like doomsday fan conspiracy stuff. If the Cubs wanted to pull stunts, they'd bring back old fan favorites or stuff like that, and this just doesn't fit that. Hoyer, if anything, has been conversative when it comes to trades. Giving up 5 years of a useful player just to sell some tickets for the owner feels out of his wheelhouse. Because of that, I'm not worried about an actual stunt here. I do believe there's some legitimacy and earnestness here.

Between Alonso and Soto, you could make an argument for Alonso and spreading out the $10m, but I'm a little hesitant to worry much about $10m extra. On the free market, that's little over an extra win purchasing power and I'm not sure that's worth the difference between Alonso and Soto (which is 2-3 fWAR or so). 

In the end, I'm still hoping for Juan Soto over Pete Alonso. I think both are about as likely to extend as the other (both are Scott Boras) once a trade happens, but I'm more confident in the Cubs paying for Juan Soto than Pete Alonso, as well based on his age. And I like that the idea of Soto would allow the Cubs to still make a 2nd trade with prospect capital (though how likely that is comes down to concerns about Hoyer's aggressivity. I'd feel better about him being aggressive if he made a trade for Juan Soto, so it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, too). Not to say I can't see where a Pete Alonso argument makes sense, just my feelings and opinions on it.

When talking Alonso versus Soto in trade and then for an extension, to me the issue comes in how long Alonso will want. If he will sign a 5 year or at most 6yr deal extending him is fine. If he wants 8-10 years I am not interested. Where with Soto you can go 12 years and know, barring injury, at least the next 8, and probably 10, should be very good. 

Alonso does make some sense, especially if you don’t have to deal Morel or any of the top 10 prospects for him and even more so if the Cubs really feel Morel can handle 3rd. But I don’t want him in his late 30’’s. 

This is also based on Alonso costing far less in salary and acquisition costs than Soto.

[Cuzi]

20 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Between Alonso and Soto, you could make an argument for Alonso and spreading out the $10m, but I'm a little hesitant to worry much about $10m extra. On the free market, that's little over an extra win purchasing power and I'm not sure that's worth the difference between Alonso and Soto (which historically has been 2-3 fWAR or so).

You have already made up the difference and then some by keeping Morel. The $10M is a bonus.

If this FO has shown anything, it's that they will not sign Juan Soto. Age is not a factor. They haven't even entertained the idea of coming within $200M of what Soto will get. Alonso can ask for whatever he wants but he's not going to get 10 years, he's not going to get $250M, he is going to end up around $160M. That is infinitely more likely to happen with this FO than whatever Juan Soto is about to get.

But I'm not even considering either player extending with the Cubs in the equation. I am talking about just the 1 year of 2024. Do you believe the best version of the 2024 Cubs includes Juan Soto? Because I dont.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Cuzi

[Tryptamine]

20 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

When talking Alonso versus Soto in trade and then for an extension, to me the issue comes in how long Alonso will want. If he will sign a 5 year or at most 6yr deal extending him is fine. If he wants 8-10 years I am not interested. Where with Soto you can go 12 years and know, barring injury, at least the next 8, and probably 10, should be very good. 

Alonso does make some sense, especially if you don’t have to deal Morel or any of the top 10 prospects for him and even more so if the Cubs really feel Morel can handle 3rd. But I don’t want him in his late 30’’s. 

This is also based on Alonso costing far less in salary and acquisition costs than Soto.

I don't even feel particularly good about a 5 year deal. Big bodied, not particularly athletic slugging 1B with a below average hit tool, don't exactly age well. A 5 year extension would have him under contract until he was 35 and there's a good chance at least 2 of those years he's going to be a huge black hole. 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Tryptamine

[Jason Ross]

17 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

You have already made up the difference and then some by keeping Morel. The $10M is a bonus.

If this FO has shown anything, it's that they will not sign Juan Soto. Age is not a factor. They haven't even entertained the idea of coming within $200M of what Soto will get. Alonso can ask for whatever he wants but he's not going to get 10 years, he's not going to get $250M, he is going to end up around $160M. That is infinitely more likely to happen with this FO than whatever Juan Soto is about to get.

But I'm not even considering either player extending with the Cubs in the equation. I am talking about just the 1 year of 2024. Do you believe the best version of the 2024 Cubs includes Juan Soto? Because I dont.

The best version of the Chicago Cubs in 2024, IMO, includes Juan Soto. Yes. I'm not convinced Jose Ramirez is realistically available, and think Juan Soto is better than Pete Alonso, Cody Bellinger...etc. Acquiring Juan Soto for someone like Morel + not-top-9 prospects would allow for a lot of wiggle room elsewhere via trade.  The only other player I think who could be better is Ohtani, but I'm not convinced he's a realistic target. We'll have to see there. He should be a target, but coming from Jesse Rogers, the Cubs big acquisitions, according to him, are likely via trade.

Edited October 31, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Cuzi]

I'm not arguing that Juan Soto is better than any individual player.

Can you make a better overall team with Juan Soto who is going to cost more payroll, cost more trade capital, to be the teams DH?

You say you have a lot of wiggle room to make additional moves. You have MORE room to make additional moves with Alonso and you are already starting at a baseline better team, given the math that was provided, and you have 1 less need to fill to complete the roster.

So common sense comes into play here. If, baseline, you are already better, you have more assets to work with, and less spots to fill, then in which scenario can you fill those spots with higher quality?

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Cuzi

[Rex Buckingham]

15 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

If this FO has shown anything, it's that they will not sign Juan Soto. Age is not a factor. They haven't even entertained the idea of coming within $200M of what Soto will get. 

Here is the list of top 5 hitters in all of baseball who have come available at age 26 (which Soto will turn after next season, just before becoming a FA) during the time the Ricketts family has owned the team:

Bryce Harper, Manny Machado (YMMV on whether or not he was a top 5 hitter, I would argue not, but he was probably close)

Harper had posted OPS+ of 133, 156, 114, and 198 the 4 years before FA. Machado ran his at 145, 108, 130, and 132

Soto's last 4 seasons were 158, 147, 175 and a 217 in the covid year... 142 the year before that, as a 20 year old

Even those 2 haven't produced consistently great numbers like Soto. And they were both available the same offseason with nearly every team bidding for them. I would imagine the Cubs made good, but not good enough, offers to both. But either way, comparing the FAs they've signed to Soto is irrelevant, because there have basically been 3 FAs like Soto that I can recall since 2000, those 2 and ARod when he signed with Texas for 10/252. 

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I'm not arguing that Juan Soto is better than any individual player.

Can you make a better overall team with Juan Soto who is going to cost more payroll, cost more trade capital, to be the teams DH?

You say you have a lot of wiggle room to make additional moves. You have MORE room to make additional moves with Alonso and you are already starting at a baseline better team, given the math that was provided, and you have 1 less need to fill to complete the roster.

So common sense comes into play here. If, baseline, you are already better, you have more assets to work with, and less spots to fill, then in which scenario can you fill those spots with higher quality?

 

Yes, I understand your argument. My argument is that the best version of the 2024 Cubs includes the best realistic player the Cubs can acquire. Pete Alonso and Christopher Morel may offer more wiggle room, but I've got the better player. Historically, Soto averages somewhere between 4-5.5 fWAR with peaks at 7 per year. Alonso between 3-4 with peaks at mid-4s. The difference between values is around what Morel was worth last year. Pete Alonso is not free, and will also be required to be traded for, though at a lower cost. I expect the cost difference between whatever else is needed to push over the Soto trade over the line with Morel headlining will be less than the total cost of Alonso. So option 1 retains more trade value to make a 2nd splash trade. I think you can work within that space with a lot of ability to continue to fill out the team.

I don't think Pete Alonso is a bad plan; so please don't get that twisted. I think you can lay out a successful offseason using Pete Alonso as the traded player, and one which would result in a good 2024 season for the Cubs on paper. But I'll remain in the camp that the best version of the Chicago Cubs in 2024 has Juan Soto apart of it.

[Cuzi]

11 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Here is the list of top 5 hitters in all of baseball who have come available at age 26 (which Soto will turn after next season, just before becoming a FA) during the time the Ricketts family has owned the team:

Bryce Harper, Manny Machado (YMMV on whether or not he was a top 5 hitter, I would argue not, but he was probably close)

Harper had posted OPS+ of 133, 156, 114, and 198 the 4 years before FA. Machado ran his at 145, 108, 130, and 132

Soto's last 4 seasons were 158, 147, 175 and a 217 in the covid year... 142 the year before that, as a 20 year old

Even those 2 haven't produced consistently great numbers like Soto. And they were both available the same offseason with nearly every team bidding for them. I would imagine the Cubs made good, but not good enough, offers to both. But either way, comparing the FAs they've signed to Soto is irrelevant, because there have basically been 3 FAs like Soto that I can recall since 2000, those 2 and ARod when he signed with Texas for 10/252. 

That's a long list of useless information.

I would imagine the Cubs didnt make any offer to Machado because they had Kris Bryant. I would also imagine they didn't seriously discuss anything with Harper because he signed a no opt out deal at $25M AAV during a time period that he and Bryant were practically begging the Cubs to get involved but they had this little problem named Jason Heyward.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Cuzi

[Rex Buckingham]

22 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

That's a long list of useless information.

I would imagine the Cubs didnt make any offer to Machado because they had Kris Bryant. I would also imagine they didn't seriously discuss anything with Harper because he signed a no opt out deal at $25M AAV during a time period that he and Bryant were practically begging the Cubs to get involved but they had this little problem named Jason Heyward.

It's not any more useless than your blanket statement that they won't sign Soto because they haven't signed anyone to a comparable contract. There have been exactly 2 players who fit the criteria that Soto fits. One that they seemingly didn't pursue because of the presence of KB at the same position, and one that we were all scratching our heads that they didn't seem to seriously pursue, but who also signed a record-breaking deal.

The point is, making a declaration that they won't offer Soto a competitive deal and therefore shouldn't try to acquire him is foolish because we have no idea what they might offer Soto in FA.

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

They are not in a position to try to paper value over a larger number of roster spots, they're in a position where there are a maximum of 3 open lineup spots they need to maximize impact from.

This is the crux of things IMO. 

You want one or two impactful moves that significantly raise the talent level of the team this winter.  Jed can probably cobble together ~1.5 WAR with internal options at each of 1B/DH/3B.  So if he has the resources to add say 8 WAR this winter, you'd want as much of that concentrated into 1 big guy as possible.  If you do 3 acquisitions at 2.8 WAR each,  you're adding about 4 wins to the bottom line.  But if you add a 5.5 WAR player (e.g. Soto) and a 2.5 WAR player (e.g. Garver or Polanco) you're actually netting 5 wins.  

I'm as guilty of playing Efficiency Olympics as anyone.  But doing that has two potential purposes: line the owners pockets or free up resources for an expensive star acquisition.  We certainly don't want to do the former so if you're going to hyper focus on efficiency the endgame has to include one of the latter

[Cuzi]

11 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

It's not any more useless than your blanket statement that they won't sign Soto because they haven't signed anyone to a comparable contract. There have been exactly 2 players who fit the criteria that Soto fits. One that they seemingly didn't pursue because of the presence of KB at the same position, and one that we were all scratching our heads that they didn't seem to seriously pursue, but who also signed a record-breaking deal.

The point is, making a declaration that they won't offer Soto a competitive deal and therefore shouldn't try to acquire him is foolish because we have no idea what they might offer Soto in FA.

I didn't say they havent signed anyone to a comparable contract. I said they havent even entertained the idea of getting within $200M of Soto. There's plenty of guys that have signed within $100M and the Cubs' rumored offer was to get them at 3-4 years less at a higher AAV to reduce the total investment because they weren't willing to even get that close.

[Cuzi]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Yes, I understand your argument. My argument is that the best version of the 2024 Cubs includes the best realistic player the Cubs can acquire. Pete Alonso and Christopher Morel may offer more wiggle room, but I've got the better player. Historically, Soto averages somewhere between 4-5.5 fWAR with peaks at 7 per year. Alonso between 3-4 with peaks at mid-4s. The difference between values is around what Morel was worth last year. Pete Alonso is not free, and will also be required to be traded for, though at a lower cost. I expect the cost difference between whatever else is needed to push over the Soto trade over the line with Morel headlining will be less than the total cost of Alonso. So option 1 retains more trade value to make a 2nd splash trade. I think you can work within that space with a lot of ability to continue to fill out the team.

I don't think Pete Alonso is a bad plan; so please don't get that twisted. I think you can lay out a successful offseason using Pete Alonso as the traded player, and one which would result in a good 2024 season for the Cubs on paper. But I'll remain in the camp that the best version of the Chicago Cubs in 2024 has Juan Soto apart of it.

How does option 1 retain more trade value while simultaneously requiring more trade value to acquire. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Jason Ross]

18 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

How does option 1 retain more trade value while simultaneously requiring more trade value to acquire. That makes absolutely no sense.

The plyer you trade (Christopher Morel) would be immediately replaced with his successor (Juan Soto) while also retaining the vast majority of your prospect capital (where you'd ideally be looking to trade from). Pete Alonso would likely sacrifice more from the prospect capital (assuming the Cubs aren't trading a player like Morel in this deal) leaving less to trade from in a subsequent trade. The addition of Christopher Morel saves prospect capital for a second trade. At the same time, Juan Soto roughly has been worth the same amount of fWAR as Alonso+Morel has been in the past. This is my reasoning.

Cuzi, I'm not looking to change your mind on a topic I don't feel has an "answer". You asked my opinion on whether or not the best version of the Cubs in 2024 has Juan Soto on it. In my opinion, that answer is yes. That question has so many variables, and variables we have no idea if we're even on agreement on (like, how much does my "best version" get to spend?). I took the question in a very loose, and hypothetical way, as if to mean "in your best case scenario in the offseason, is Juan Soto on the Cubs?" Maybe you meant it a different way. Or maybe your "best" version of the Cubs has different parameters than mine. But that's my answer in the way I have understood the question.

Edited October 31, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Cuzi]

So does Morel only count as trade value in a deal for Soto? How is he trade value before but not after?

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Trading Morel for Soto doesn't remove talent from our MLB roster. It IMPROVES the talent of our MLB roster, at the (not insignificant) cost of money and maybe an additional minor leaguer or 2

You're removing some talent and adding better talent.  You net gain talent yes, but not as much compared to if you traded Soto for minor leaguers who won't contribute next year.   Morel was our 3rd best hitter and makes no money so has surplus.  As a 1 year strategy it just doesn't make much sense to trade Morel when we can just as easily be trading prospects.  The Cubs need to decide if they're trying to win in 2024 or 2026.

[WhyCantWeWin]

Just get both Soto and Alonso. If you gotta trade Morel that is. I don't get the point of hoarding prospects and then not promoting/playing them.