Cubs offseason chit chat...

[CubbyBlue2008]

My dad just passed away from cancer on January 3rd. I hate that horsefeathers man. It’s the worst. I hope Ryno can get through it.

[chibears55]

1 hour ago, mul21 said:

Nah, I think Boras is still trying to find a sucker and if he can't they'll come back to the Cubs and take whatever Jed is offering.  Due diligence on both sides.

That seems to be Jeds approach to Free Agency with the top players from each position of his needs.

Instead of being aggressive and getting the guys he wants, he waits for the last one standing to try and get him closer to what he willing to offer.

 

[Rcal10]

The debate on who is right and who is wrong when it comes to owners and players is a  argument that never ends well. Some will side with the owners and cut down the “greedy players’ while others will side with the players and complain about the “billionaires” making all sorts of money and being cheap bastards who care only about money, not winning. And no matter how much we discuss it, whatever side you are on, no one is going to change anyone’s mind.

But I will say, something does have to change in baseball. The disparity is becoming too large between teams that spend and teams that don’t. It is not good for competition. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

So Feinsand says that only one of the colluding owners has authorized an offer to Snell. 6/150 and he turned it down. Thinks he's earned a 200M contract reportedly. Sounds very familiar. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

The debate on who is right and who is wrong when it comes to owners and players is a  argument that never ends well. Some will side with the owners and cut down the “greedy players’ while others will side with the players and complain about the “billionaires” making all sorts of money and being cheap bastards who care only about money, not winning. And no matter how much we discuss it, whatever side you are on, no one is going to change anyone’s mind.

But I will say, something does have to change in baseball. The disparity is becoming too large between teams that spend and teams that don’t. It is not good for competition. 

FTR, I do not believe players are greedy. I think some of them are slightly delusional. 

[Thusly Boned]

17 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

FTR, I do not believe players are greedy. I think some of them are slightly delusional. 

Yeah, and a lot of that delusion stems the extreme confidence that comes naturally, and a lot is they're drinking the kool-aid their agents are serving. But most of them aren't rocket scientists, either.

Owners are another thing. I think they should be compelled to spend, at least at a level that correlates to their cash flow. For the health of the game, craven profiteering should be dissuaded.

[thawv]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

So Feinsand says that only one of the colluding owners has authorized an offer to Snell. 6/150 and he turned it down. Thinks he's earned a 200M contract reportedly. Sounds very familiar. 

I think that's a fair market value offer. 

[Rcal10]

24 minutes ago, thawv said:

I think that's a fair market value offer. 

Annual is fine. I think he wants more years.

[thawv]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Annual is fine. I think he wants more years.

You're probably right, but 6 years is through his age 36.  For me, I wouldn't want him past 36 anyways. 

[Rcal10]

They need to figure out a way to reward winning for the owners. Make it profit driven for them to win. They might even need to figure out a way to reward teams in the low revenue more revenue sharing the more they win. Some of these owners  on the low revenue teams don’t even try to field a team. They would rather take the money the large market teams are taxed and pocket it. Maybe the low budget team that wins the most get a higher percent of the tax money. Make them have to earn that money. Maybe they would spend some of it make them more money. Honestly, I don’t know what they can do. I am sure large revenue teams will never agree to revenue sharing like the NFL or NBA. And I am also sure they will never agree to a cap and a minimum. 

[CubinNY]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

They need to figure out a way to reward winning for the owners. Make it profit driven for them to win. They might even need to figure out a way to reward teams in the low revenue more revenue sharing the more they win. Some of these owners  on the low revenue teams don’t even try to field a team. They would rather take the money the large market teams are taxed and pocket it. Maybe the low budget team that wins the most get a higher percent of the tax money. Make them have to earn that money. Maybe they would spend some of it make them more money. Honestly, I don’t know what they can do. I am sure large revenue teams will never agree to revenue sharing like the NFL or NBA. And I am also sure they will never agree to a cap and a minimum. 

If the players divvy up $35 million, how much do you think the owners get? 

[Sammy Sofa]

16 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

They need to figure out a way to reward winning for the owners.

[Rob]

If the owners need to be incentivized, why does it need to be a reward?

The franchise with the worst record in baseball should be forced to sell to new ownership. Every year.

Or if you'd rather, attach the ownership getting shitcanned to the draft lottery. That'd keep more owners "honest."

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

If the owners need to be incentivized, why does it need to be a reward?

The franchise with the worst record in baseball should be forced to sell to new ownership. Every year.

Or if you'd rather, attach the ownership getting shitcanned to the draft lottery. That'd keep more owners "honest."

Ok, fine. But what you are suggesting is punishing the bad teams. That is fine too. Whatever it takes to make winning a priority is fine with me. 

[Thusly Boned]

18 minutes ago, Rob said:

If the owners need to be incentivized, why does it need to be a reward?

The franchise with the worst record in baseball should be forced to sell to new ownership. Every year.

Or if you'd rather, attach the ownership getting shitcanned to the draft lottery. That'd keep more owners "honest."

No idea if it would be feasible, but make it so all owners have to share their financials with the league, set a payroll/baseball ops budget floor for each team that is a fixed percentage of their revenue, and if they don't meet that payroll/baseball ops budget floor, penalize them the difference. So they end up spending the same regardless.

Like a reverse luxury tax.

[Rob]

32 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Ok, fine. But what you are suggesting is punishing the bad teams. That is fine too. Whatever it takes to make winning a priority is fine with me. 

How do you figure it punishes the team? I can't imagine any of the players caring who the owner is.

[Tryptamine]

1 hour ago, Sammy Sofa said:

Doubling their franchise value every 10 years is apparently not enough.

[Rcal10]

32 minutes ago, Rob said:

How do you figure it punishes the team? I can't imagine any of the players caring who the owner is.

Poor choice of words. Maybe I should have said punishing the teams owners. horsefeathers canning them from the draft is punishing the team ownership, as is forcing them to sell the team. Again, either incentify winning or find a way to discourage losing.

[Rcal10]

Chapman just signed for $10.5M. I really am not sure the Cubs will spend that on a pen arm. I can see them spending another $50M. That would put them close to $250M. Over the first layer but $7M under the second LT layer. So if they signed Bellinger for $25M a year that leaves $25M - $26M for another bat and a pen arm. If the arm cost $10M that probably takes them out of any trade for Alonso or signing Hoskins. And definitely out of signing M. Chapman. 

[SOFNR]

If signing a quality reliever for 1/10.5 is too much for the Cubs then I don't know what they're even doing. I wasn't overly interested in a Chapman reunion, but they should be all over a deal like that. 

[Tim]

I'm perfectly happy with a decision not to sign Chapman at any price.

[Jason Ross]

Him headed to Pitt is interesting. Possibly something to monitor as a Cub fan. Chapman probably shouldn't have to "settle" being the setup guy. But last I checked, the Pirates had Bednar. A bit of an odd choice unless there was no Chapman market to speak of. The Cubs *were* connected to Bednar at the deadline, and we know the Cubs have been connected to Clase.

Just food for thought.

[Rob]

19 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Him headed to Pitt is interesting. Possibly something to monitor as a Cub fan. Chapman probably shouldn't have to "settle" being the setup guy. But last I checked, the Pirates had Bednar. A bit of an odd choice unless there was no Chapman market to speak of. The Cubs *were* connected to Bednar at the deadline, and we know the Cubs have been connected to Clase.

Just food for thought.

It's largely meaningless, I imagine.

All parties involved know he's getting moved at the deadline to a team in need of bullpen help. Whether he's closer now or then or whenever is irrelevant to the issue of his trade value.

[Bertz]

Really good read from MLBTR.  2018 looks to be the most analogous year to this current one, and even then his guys didn't do especially well.  Now it's questionable which way the causation arrow is pointing, but interesting food for thought.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Boras close a few deals in the next little bit to clear the decks some.  Especially the pitchers, since they need the mid-February reporting date a lot more than the hitters.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, SOFNR said:

If signing a quality reliever for 1/10.5 is too much for the Cubs then I don't know what they're even doing. I wasn't overly interested in a Chapman reunion, but they should be all over a deal like that. 

I know what they're doing, it looks like they're trying to stay under the LT line.  You don't do that with a 10.5m reliever.

So far all they've done is signed the cheapest "quality" SP available and filled 1B with a rookie at league minimum plus signed a reliever who had a 5.02 ERA last season.  Almonte agreed to a 1.9m deal to avoid arbitration in Sept., looks like he's meant as one of our new pen "upgrades".

They'll probably sign one of Chapman/Bellinger, add a decent reliever, maybe another usable bat that isn't too expensive, and slide under the LT again.  I hope i'm wrong but it's not like we haven't seen this act before.  All this hot air about the Cubs going to be a big spender the rest of the offseason is probably just Boras spreading his usual nonsense for leverage.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Stratos