Cubs offseason chit chat...

[KCCub]

12 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

The problem is that he's not very good. 2022 was a complete mirage thanks to a 91.9 LOB%. 2023 was very mediocre, 2021 was solid and 2020 was a disaster. 

His 10 IP in 2020?? He's been solid over his career 347 IP (3.45 ERA/4.14 FIP). I would say he's solid actually as opposed to "not very good". His velo is holding up as well. 

Edited January 25, 2024 by KCCub

[Bertz]

On 1/21/2024 at 5:21 PM, Bertz said:

Ryne Stanek's peripherals aren't as good as I would like, but he actually does have a history of outperforming them.  His ERA is a run lower than his xFIP for his entire career.  He's also an elite stuff guy.  Of the 347 pitchers who threw more than 50 innings last year, Stanek was 15th in velo and 9th in Stuff+.  He's not my first choice but I'm not going to like flip a table if he's the primary reliever Jed adds.

Just gonna re-up this

[SOFNR]

I'll be pretty bummed if both their reliever aquisitions are bounce back guys who were basically replacement level last season.  I really thought they'd shop in a higher tier this year. 

[Bertz]

7 minutes ago, SOFNR said:

I'll be pretty bummed if both their reliever aquisitions are bounce back guys who were basically replacement level last season.  I really thought they'd shop in a higher tier this year. 

I agree, though I will say they would at least be putting together a *significantly* higher octane bullpen than they did to open last year. Stanek is an absolutely elite stuff guy and Almonte's pretty high end as well, he's basically Michael Fulmer plus an additional 2 MPH.  Add in that Little and Palencia are available at Iowa basically from jump and we would have opportunity for a smothering bullpen....if Hottovy can get them to throw enough strikes.

[SOFNR]

Just now, Bertz said:

I agree, though I will say they would at least be putting together a *significantly* higher octane bullpen than they did to open last year. Stanek is an absolutely elite stuff guy and Almonte's pretty high end as well, he's basically Michael Fulmer plus an additional 2 MPH.  Add in that Little and Palencia are available at Iowa basically from jump and we would have opportunity for a smothering bullpen....if Hottovy can get them to throw enough strikes.

Yah, neither is a guy I'd be upset to have in the bullpen. I actually trust that the org likely brings out the best in them. But it's definitely not the sort of shopping i expected. 

[Backtobanks]

I like Crochett from the WS, how about Crochett + Moncada + $10 million for Madrigal + Palencia?

Hope for a bounce back year from Moncada (costing $11 million) and then either trade him or DFA ($5 million next year) and add a hard throwing lefty RP.  WS get a cheap replacement @3B and a hard throwing RP while saving $16 million over 2 years.

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Aren’t most opt out player options? Why would a player agree to a team opt out option? Can you give an example of a contract that is long term that a team can opt out of? 

Player opt outs I meant

[ToolDRT]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

But what should he do? Give in? Give Bellinger $250  for 10 years? We don’t really know if he is working on trades. But trades take a second team. So he might be waiting on Boras with Bellinger or even  Chapman, but in the meantime also trying to see if he can made a deal that will help the team. I doubt he is just sitting around waiting to hear back from Boras. In fact, I would guess one deal he did make, for Busch, eliminated any offer or thought of Hoskins. If Boras sticks to these numbers he is asking, there is literally nothing Jed can do to sign Bellinger or Chapman, except give in. And I wouldn’t want that. 

No, I don’t think he should give in. And again, easy for me to say from my couch, but I wouldn’t have even been targeting who’s left on the free agent market. Chapman and Bellinger come with an amount of risk I don’t really want a part of. But here we are. With pretty much no better options. 

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Player opt outs I meant

So as a GM you would put opt outs in long term contracts for the players to decide to opt out? Why do you consider this a good idea? The only time they would exercise the opt out is if they performed well and could get more money/years than you have them signed for? If they underperform they won’t take the opt out. I am pretty sure players would love that sort of contract. Not sure why as a GM, you would. To me that is the last think a GM would do. In some cases they need to in order to get a guy signed. But I think most times it is not something a GM wants. 

[Stratos]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So as a GM you would put opt outs in long term contracts for the players to decide to opt out? Why do you consider this a good idea? The only time they would exercise the opt out is if they performed well and could get more money/years than you have them signed for? If they underperform they won’t take the opt out. I am pretty sure players would love that sort of contract. Not sure why as a GM, you would. To me that is the last think a GM would do. In some cases they need to in order to get a guy signed. But I think most times it is not something a GM wants. 

Well I said that's what I expect to happen, not what I wanted.  But I wouldn't have a big deal putting in an opt out for an expensive longterm FA deal.   If I can get 2 or 3 good seasons at the youngest ages of a FA contract and avoid the later years of a deal that's a win.   Can take that money saved and just sign another player.  Even if you theoretically gave them an opt out every single year it's not a big deal, especially if you get concessions from the player in terms of AAV or guaranteed length.

[Rcal10]

42 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Well I said that's what I expect to happen, not what I wanted.  But I wouldn't have a big deal putting in an opt out for an expensive longterm FA deal.   If I can get 2 or 3 good seasons at the youngest ages of a FA contract and avoid the later years of a deal that's a win.   Can take that money saved and just sign another player.  Even if you theoretically gave them an opt out every single year it's not a big deal, especially if you get concessions from the player in terms of AAV or guaranteed length.

Sorry, misunderstood. However in your original post you did say if you were a GM you would put that in contracts, to keep players motivated. I just don’t see that as a good option for teams. They may do it, and in Bellinger’s case it make some sense. But with him I would only do it in a short term deal like Correa’s first contract in 22’. 

[Banedon]

I'm just gonna throw this here...

 

 

 

[Derwood]

[CubinNY]

Not a Cubs target but Joc close to signing with the D-Backs

[LBiittner]

Both woodruff and Kershaw had capsule surgery on their shoulders. Kershaw will probably try to stay in LA. Could woodruff be a worthwhile gamble for Jed? I'm thinking more towards 2025, but can pitchers return in less than a year after this type of surgery 

[squally1313]

Robertson to the Tigers for 1/11. 

 

Edit: Rangers. No idea what I was reading. But, big picture, not the Cubs. 

Edited January 26, 2024 by squally1313

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Robertson to the Tigers for 1/11. 

Tigers? Or Rangers? 

[Tryptamine]

well that was a missed opportunity

 

[Stratos]

So I guess if we sign a pen FA it's some 4-5m signing like Fulmer was, or slightly better?  Let's hope for a trade I guess....

[Stratos]

Yankees blowing smoke over Bellinger?

https://www.mlb.com/yankees/news/aaron-judge-expected-to-bat-third-play-center-field-in-2024

Yanks have some solid OF prospects though.

Edited January 26, 2024 by Stratos

[We Got The Whole 9]

Well it's glaringly apparent the Cubs refuse to spend 10+ on a RP. Not that i'm complaining, just observing. I thought we might swoop in on Robertson. Hope we can get Stanek for 7-8.

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Well it's glaringly apparent the Cubs refuse to spend 10+ on a RP. Not that i'm complaining, just observing. I thought we might swoop in on Robertson. Hope we can get Stanek for 7-8.

This is why it was apparent they weren’t going to sign 2 pen arms. Even if each was $7M to $8M I never understood the desire for 2. They have either $32M or $52M to spend (depending if they plan on going over the first LT line or not) so I never saw that much money going to the pen. Those figures above would give them around $5M to spend at the deadline before going to the next tier. And they are not going to go over $257M. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

12 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

This is why it was apparent they weren’t going to sign 2 pen arms. Even if each was $7M to $8M I never understood the desire for 2. They have either $32M or $52M to spend (depending if they plan on going over the first LT line or not) so I never saw that much money going to the pen. Those figures above would give them around $5M to spend at the deadline before going to the next tier. And they are not going to go over $257M. 

They are definitely banking on internal improvements like Palencia and Little and hopefully someone else pops up. There are a lot of players in the system that could fill those holes, i.e. Brown.

[Rcal10]

Just now, We Got The Whole 9 said:

They are definitely banking on internal improvements like Palencia and Little and hopefully someone else pops up. There are a lot of players in the system that could fill those holes, i.e. Brown.

Yep. That is why I am not as worried about the pen as some. Because on top of that, some negatively exaggerated the pen. It definitely tanked at the end. But it was an average pen. It took a while for Ross to get things in place. So it struggled early. My hope is Counsell works the pen better and they get more help from the system. I know everyone wants to point to bad signing costing them in the pen. But they also got bad results from holdovers they were counting on. Hughes never recovered from his injury and Thompson sucked. Those were two guys they were counting on. I feel the system is allowing them way more options this year and I also feel the pen will be managed better. 

[mul21]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Yep. That is why I am not as worried about the pen as some. Because on top of that, some negatively exaggerated the pen. It definitely tanked at the end. But it was an average pen. It took a while for Ross to get things in place. So it struggled early. My hope is Counsell works the pen better and they get more help from the system. I know everyone wants to point to bad signing costing them in the pen. But they also got bad results from holdovers they were counting on. Hughes never recovered from his injury and Thompson sucked. Those were two guys they were counting on. I feel the system is allowing them way more options this year and I also feel the pen will be managed better. 

I think the biggest thing here is that the depth this year is much more significant.  You had a very small number of guys you were relying on, plus how unsettled all the roles were.  I think there's both more certainty to roles this year and a lot more viable options to explore if someone isn't performing out of the gate.  Plus, I think Counsell will likely be better at managing/anticipating than Ross was.