Cubs offseason chit chat...

[Tim]

44 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

You do understand the irony of suggesting the Cubs will do something they have never done and avoided doing while at the same time suggesting teams are steering away from doing it, right?

Because your post implies you don't.

Ha. Just because something hasn't been done yet does not mean that it won't be done in the future.

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I don't buy for one second that Ricketts is the driving force behind not signing a 10 year deal. Ricketts is a business man. He of all people understands investments. There is no chance he believes that signing one of these guys to a 10 year deal is a bad investment. If you look at all of the mega contracts in history and compare it to what teams are paying on a per WAR basis, there is only 1 that comes out as a surplus off the top of my head and that's Max Scherzers deal with the Nationals. Yet with all of the evidence to suggest that no matter how good the player is, they aren't worth the money, then why do teams continue to pay them more and more? Because to the owners it doesn't matter how they perform on the field. What matters is how much revenue they bring in and they all understand that someone like Ohtani is going to bring in his entire contract in revenue by like year 3.

 

On the other hand, Hoyer's job is on the line with these decisions. If Ricketts is willing to sign off on 6-7 years at $35M/year, then there is not shot that he wouldn't sign off on 10 years at $30M. Because a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a tomorrow. So while Ricketts would sign off on something because in the end his bank account will grow no matter what, Hoyer has to keep producing to keep his job.

So if TR is fine with this and Hoyer is not doing it wouldn’t he get fired? Not like they are winning under Jed. I think to absolve TR of this entirely is foolish. I agree it appears Jed isn’t comfortable with that sort of thing too. But I cannot see how you don’t think Ricketts thinks similar. Honestly it doesn’t matter. The result is still the same. They Cubs organization has not shown they will give 10+ year deals up until now. 

[Tim]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

The Cubs organization has not shown they will give 10+ year deals up until now. 

This is a proper statement.

[Tim]

Hoyer had also not shown a willingness to extend his own players and people claimed he wouldn't do that either. 

Until he did 

Twice 

[Rcal10]

32 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

There are currently 14 players that are playing under a 10+ year contract, and 9 of them were FA that signed their contract with a new team.

 

There are currently 11 players that are playing with a contract of 8 or 9 yrs, and just 3 of those players have signed with a new team as a FA.

 

Only 9 of all these FA have signed their 8+ year deals in last 5 seasons. 

 

So,  as said, the 8+ and 10+ years being given to FA and especially FA leaving their current/original team are just not a thing being offered much anymore.

 

As far as Hoyer goes, I'd be surprise if he ties up big money on a 30 YO for 10 years, not sure having  35-40 mil tied up into one player from age 35 to 39 is a good idea with an owner like Ricketts who sets low budgets

Doesn’t this research go against your statement? I mean, there are already not a lot of guys signing 8 to 10+ year deals. Did you not suggest in the future there will be less? I am just saying I don’t agree there will be less. I don’t see anything that would suggest that. There has never been many and in the future there won’t be many. 
BTW, I am not arguing if the Cubs stance is right or wrong. But I will say if they don’t go long years they aren’t going to sign the elite FA. 

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Tim said:

Hoyer had also not shown a willingness to extend his own players and people claimed he wouldn't do that either. 

Until he did 

Twice 

Well…… he added a year to Nico. Not much of an extension. He did extend Happ however. And, I am holding out hope they do decide to go 10+ years if that is what it takes for Ohtani or if that is what it will take to extend Soto after trading for him. 

[Rcal10]

21 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I think the Cubs would sign a 25 y/o to a 10 yr deal.  It's a far, far better idea than signing a 29/30 yo to an expensive 10 year deal, which IMO is a manifestly stupid the vast majority of the time.

While I understand your position let me ask you this. If the Cubs signed Ohtani for 12 years and for 8 of then he was an elite MVP candidate and then he dropped off some his last 3 or 4 years do you  consider that a bad signing? How about if they won a World Series and made the playoffs in 6 of those 8 years. Maybe went to anothe WS and went to a couple of NLCS. If him being grossly overpaid for 3 years a reason to call it a bad contract? Is he worth it if that happens even knowing they have to carry a bad contract for 3 years? 

[Cuzi]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So if TR is fine with this and Hoyer is not doing it wouldn’t he get fired? Not like they are winning under Jed. I think to absolve TR of this entirely is foolish. I agree it appears Jed isn’t comfortable with that sort of thing too. But I cannot see how you don’t think Ricketts thinks similar. Honestly it doesn’t matter. The result is still the same. They Cubs organization has not shown they will give 10+ year deals up until now. 

I highly doubt Ricketts is that involved in how or where the budget is allocated.

It's Hoyers decision where that $30M goes. So far he has chosen to put it into 2 or 3 mediocre players over one great player.

[Rcal10]

55 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I highly doubt Ricketts is that involved in how or where the budget is allocated.

It's Hoyers decision where that $30M goes. So far he has chosen to put it into 2 or 3 mediocre players over one great player.

But he does have say in what the payroll will be. So in years 8 thru 10 when that big FA signing from previous years sucks, as is typical in those long term deals, he still doesn’t budge on being under the LT. That is a factor in signing a guy for 10+ years. I agree Jed has to take some responsibility for the FO not giving long deals. But I also feel TR has to take some responsibility as well. I also think Jed is in charge because he shares the same beliefs as ownership. And, again, it doesn’t matter who is the reason for this way of running the team. All that matters is up until now, for whatever reason, they have not shown they are willing to give out 10 year deals. 

[Bertz]

This argument is basically the definition of specious reasoning

 

[CubinNY]

14 hours ago, Cuzi said:

I don't buy for one second that Ricketts is the driving force behind not signing a 10 year deal. Ricketts is a business man. He of all people understands investments. There is no chance he believes that signing one of these guys to a 10 year deal is a bad investment. If you look at all of the mega contracts in history and compare it to what teams are paying on a per WAR basis, there is only 1 that comes out as a surplus off the top of my head and that's Max Scherzers deal with the Nationals. Yet with all of the evidence to suggest that no matter how good the player is, they aren't worth the money, then why do teams continue to pay them more and more? Because to the owners it doesn't matter how they perform on the field. What matters is how much revenue they bring in and they all understand that someone like Ohtani is going to bring in his entire contract in revenue by like year 3.

 

On the other hand, Hoyer's job is on the line with these decisions. If Ricketts is willing to sign off on 6-7 years at $35M/year, then there is not shot that he wouldn't sign off on 10 years at $30M. Because a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a tomorrow. So while Ricketts would sign off on something because in the end his bank account will grow no matter what, Hoyer has to keep producing to keep his job.

Ricketts hand is moving Jed’s mouth. They are the same

[WhyCantWeWin]

Smyly taking this long to decide on his option is giving me hope he might somehow opt out. That 11 mil + 21 mil from Stroman could/should be used on Yamamoto.

[Bertz]

As a guy certainly looking for just a 1 year deal at our position of greatest need Hoskins should probably be closer to top of mind.

 

[Jason Ross]

Yeah, Hoskins would be an interesting stop-gap at 1b this offseason. I'd like the Cubs at some point to stop with the constant barrage of stop-gaps/reclamations and start to settle in a bit more at some positions, but I'm also fine with the Cubs playing stop-gap at 1b if it means they go out and bring in some more long-term options (or a Juan Soto with the hope that they extend him long term) via trade.

Edited November 6, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[CubinNY]

Hard pass on Hoskins. They aren't striking lighting in the bottle again.

 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Yeah, Hoskins would be an interesting stop-gap at 1b this offseason. I'd like the Cubs at some point to stop with the constant barrage of stop-gaps/reclamations and start to settle in a bit more at some positions, but I'm also fine with the Cubs playing stop-gap at 1b if it means they go out and bring in some more long-term options (or a Juan Soto with the hope that they extend him long term) via trade.

Correct. Hoskins as their main move would be awful. Hoskins as a bounce back guy for a year along with other bigger moves, whether it be a Soto trade, a trade for a young controlled pitcher, a big free agent signing or any combination of the above, would be fine. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would push back on the idea of Hoskins as a 'bounce back' or 'lightning in a bottle' type of acquisition.  Yes, he didn't play this year, but it was due to an injury(torn ACL) that was long enough ago(March) and in a location that shouldn't impact him in a material way going forward.  Prior to that injury he was just a really good hitter, a career 126 wRC+ that he hasn't had significant ups and downs in reaching.  I don't think he should be the primary bat added, but he's also far more of a sure thing than say, Bellinger was last year in a similar 'signing a 1 year deal as a platform to get a big FA deal' contractual situation.

[Cuzi]

46 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Cubs at 1B in 2023:

.260/.320/.436/.324/103

~Middle of the pack

Cubs at DH in 2023:

.237/.302/.429/.314/97

Bottom 10

I don’t hate Hoskins at 1B but, if it’s truly the team’s greatest need, would prefer a healthy body at least to address it? Carlos Santana even would be fine moreorless 

Damn near all of the production the Cubs got out of 1B was Bellinger.

[Rcal10]

14 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I would push back on the idea of Hoskins as a 'bounce back' or 'lightning in a bottle' type of acquisition.  Yes, he didn't play this year, but it was due to an injury(torn ACL) that was long enough ago(March) and in a location that shouldn't impact him in a material way going forward.  Prior to that injury he was just a really good hitter, a career 126 wRC+ that he hasn't had significant ups and downs in reaching.  I don't think he should be the primary bat added, but he's also far more of a sure thing than say, Bellinger was last year in a similar 'signing a 1 year deal as a platform to get a big FA deal' contractual situation.

You won’t get an argument from me on Hoskins. I mentioned him about a week ago as an option and was basically told if the Cubs went with him and Mervis at 1st and DH it would be the start of a terrible off season. I do like Hoskins. But others seemed to hate the idea. 

[Chicago Al]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Hard pass on Hoskins. They aren't striking lighting in the bottle again.

 

Bro, thank you exactly… How much does Hoskins get anyways? Is he looking for a $100 mil dollar deal? No thanks, spend the money elsewhere.

[We Got The Whole 9]

8 minutes ago, Chicago Al said:

Bro, thank you exactly… How much does Hoskins get anyways? Is he looking for a $100 mil dollar deal? No thanks, spend the money elsewhere.

Coming off a torn ACL there's no way he gets 100M. I'd bet he takes a 1/20 or 2/40 with a mutual option.

[Jason Ross]

Yeah, I'm expecting Hoskins takes a deal that kind of mirrors the Bellinger deal in a few ways. I expect he'll get a 1 year deal that is for around $18-22m in total, but on paper acts like a "two year, mutual option" deal. There's zero chance that mutual option goes into place (either he'll be hurt/bad and the team will never pick it up, or he'll be good and he'll never pick it up) and spread the cash out two years despite it being just a one year deal. He'll try to get that big contract next year (and should still probably get a good deal if he has a bounceback).

Edited November 6, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Transmogrified Tiger]

25 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Yeah, I'm expecting Hoskins takes a deal that kind of mirrors the Bellinger deal in a few ways. I expect he'll get a 1 year deal that is for around $18-22m in total, but on paper acts like a "two year, mutual option" deal. There's zero chance that mutual option goes into place (either he'll be hurt/bad and the team will never pick it up, or he'll be good and he'll never pick it up) and spread the cash out two years despite it being just a one year deal. He'll try to get that big contract next year (and should still probably get a good deal if he has a bounceback).

I'm not at a place of high confidence in how hot the FA market will be(I rarely am), but I also wouldn't be surprised to see the range for Hoskins to be about 5 million lower because of his position and the relative lack of ceiling he offers compared to a Bellinger.  We should know pretty quickly though, because if he's in line for an 18-22 million dollar deal then the Phillies should probably give him a QO.  That QO if given might actually be the thing that drives his market down several million too, but either way we'll know if I'm being overly rosy about his cost.

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I'm not at a place of high confidence in how hot the FA market will be(I rarely am), but I also wouldn't be surprised to see the range for Hoskins to be about 5 million lower because of his position and the relative lack of ceiling he offers compared to a Bellinger.  We should know pretty quickly though, because if he's in line for an 18-22 million dollar deal then the Phillies should probably give him a QO.  That QO if given might actually be the thing that drives his market down several million too, but either way we'll know if I'm being overly rosy about his cost.

I'm expecting the money he gets to be kind of spread out. So like, he gets $14m in 2024, but with a $4.5m buyout for the mutual option being declined next year, akin to the Bellinger contract. So it'll be $18.5m or whatever in reality but it'll look like a 2 year mutual option thing. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

22 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Another thing I was thinking…The current rotation of Steele, Hendricks, Taillon, and Wicks is not dying for a FA or trade super mega duper ace? That group has 2023 CY candidate, a bounceback candidate in Taillon, a breakout candidate in Wicks, and Hendricks coming off his highest velo season since 2016 (including avg 88-89 over his final 4 starts) with a 3-4 SP prospects in the upper minors behind them (and I do believe that bunch has at least one Future first division power SP in there)

Bryan Woo’s name came up here and I can see the fit for an arm more like him (cheap, controlled, not a particularly high ceiling but already competent) as much as an ace. He’s features a 3 fastball mix that misses bats with some velo, and there’s some potential to shape up the changeup (FGs thinks it has 55 potential) and a slider that got ~20% whiffs+IFFBs 

 

Just a matter of where you want to put the resources.  There is risk by aiming your sights slightly lower/less certain with a SP acquisition, but the logic is there(pitching is more risky so strength in numbers is better, statement of belief in one or more of Taillon/Horton/Wicks, etc).  If you make e.g. a Morel for Woo deal, then it really becomes incumbent that you land multiple very good bats and take fewer risks there.  Pressure is on to make sure you get one of Ohtani/Soto, or walk a very thin line without them(Bellinger/Alonso?)