Glasnow To Dodgers, Pending Extension

[CubinNY]

Derwood, you are noting if not consistent. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by CubinNY

[Derwood]

This isn't an argument against spending, it's pointing out that "it must be nice to be a Dodgers fan!" isn't necessarily true, as they have their own complaints.

 

tl;dr every fanbase is full of doom boner-ists

[Sammy Sofa]

Complaining about a baller ass team not winning more WS is objectively a zillion times better than having to settle for complaining about a wack ass team crying poor and aiming for the horsefeathers middle without an ounce of shame.

[KCCub]

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

18 minutes ago, KCCub said:

 

Interesting, just came here to post this.

It's not unreasonable but I don't really think I want Glasnow at those years and price.

[morrisjon]

18 minutes ago, KCCub said:

 

 

Wow. I have no idea if this is the new norm or if the Dodgers are just outbidding themselves but that extension is insane. 

[LBiittner]

WTH?

[LBiittner]

So let get this correct, 5 years and 135m for peanut brittle ? The buy in price to play MLB poker has climbed to insanity

[17 Seconds]

the dodgers will win so many regular season games that they could just tell glasnow to sit out the first half and try to extend his 100 innings into the postseason. they don't even need him, the whole idea is that he's worth a shot at being healthy in the postseason.

[squally1313]

This entire offseason:

1. Marquee player is linked to the Cubs, goes somewhere else
2. What the horsefeathers Jed and PTR suck so much, we're not throwing our money around and beating these deals even though we could
3. Actual deal terms come out
4. Woah, well, man, that is a lot of players/money, that's way more than we were discussing, don't know if I would have done that, that seems way over the top
5. Switch to another thread
6. Repeat #2

[17 Seconds]

Just now, squally1313 said:

This entire offseason:

1. Marquee player is linked to the Cubs, goes somewhere else
2. What the horsefeathers Jed and PTR suck so much, we're not throwing our money around and beating these deals even though we could
3. Actual deal terms come out
4. Woah, well, man, that is a lot of players/money, that's way more than we were discussing, don't know if I would have done that, that seems way over the top
5. Switch to another thread
6. Repeat #2

hey man, it takes two sides to make a deal

[LBiittner]

1 minute ago, 17 Seconds said:

hey man, it takes two sides to make a deal

Exactly. Why would there ever be another mlb player strike/ holdout in our foreseeable lifetime??

[morrisjon]

16 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

the dodgers will win so many regular season games that they could just tell glasnow to sit out the first half and try to extend his 100 innings into the postseason. they don't even need him, the whole idea is that he's worth a shot at being healthy in the postseason.

Kershaw can pitch the first half and Glasnow can pitch the playoffs. 🙂 

[JBears79]

Yeah I really dont like that Glasnow contract. I'd be more interested in Jordan Montgomery around there imo.

[ToolDRT]

On the other hand, the dodgers can do a deal like that because they’re not afraid to keep spending. If you knew the cubs didn’t give a **** about payroll and would spend some more if the Glasnow deal goes bad would you really care about the price?

 

The reason every deal looks like an “overpay” to us is because we’re conditioned to the fact that if our big contract moves go sideways (Heyward) we’re gonna use that to cry poor and sit out the top of the market. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

5 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

On the other hand, the dodgers can do a deal like that because they’re not afraid to keep spending. If you knew the cubs didn’t give a **** about payroll and would spend some more if the Glasnow deal goes bad would you really care about the price?

 

The reason every deal looks like an “overpay” to us is because we’re conditioned to the fact that if our big contract moves go sideways (Heyward) we’re gonna use that to cry poor and sit out the top of the market. 

The Dodgers have a 100 million dollar head start every year on every other team in MLB thanks to their TV contract, and they still tried(and failed thanks to Bauer shenanigans) to get under the luxury tax this past year.

[LBiittner]

7 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The word irrational wasn't chosen for it's truest definition of the word, but the way Andrew Friedman used it. Essentially, that unless you get "irrational" or go beyond what you were originally comfortable with, you'll always finish second on every player you want. And yes, Theo was irrational in that sense. Torres for Chapman was an overpay. A necessary overpay, but an overpay. And while I still think on the day of the trade the Cubs had logic behind Jimenez/Cease, we could also claim that was a bit of an irrational overpay. Let's also not forget, while we typically remember that Heyward was a "seven" year contract, to get that done, the Cubs offered one of the earlier opt-outs; essentially letting Heyward walk after just a few seasons if he was still good (sadly didn't work out). They won a bidding war with Boston for Lester. In some aspects, like a deadline deal for a true WS favorites, there are things that Hoyer hasn't been in a position to do yet, but others of these he's been in a position to make, and has yet to do that. 

No one has asked the Cubs to buy high and sell low. No one here is confused as to how this works. Let's stop moving goalposts of my post. My post isn't a misunderstanding of how being a VP of baseball ops should work in theory, it's questioning whether or not Jed Hoyer has the killer instinct to go out and win bidding wars for elite talents, has the stomach for the types of trades in which real prospect capital is leaving for real established MLB talent, which are two things you need if you're going to run a top-5 market in baseball. Thus far, even when he "wins" a free agent contract like Swanson, I think it would be fair to ask "who exactly was he bidding against when that contract was signed?" There was some maybe rumored interest from LA and maybe some rumored interest from Atlanta...but did the Cubs win that so much as Swanson and the Cubs were the best remaining fit? It's been a quality piece of business in year one, and I'll concede that, and it's not the point of that question. The question is the process. 

Jed Hoyer's managed to sell a lot of people on his vision. That's great. I say this as someone who's defended Hoyer many times in the past...his vision is waning on me, If you want to keep believing in the process, that's fine and your choice. But Jed Hoyer wouldn't be the first, or the last, guy in charge of a franchise who simply didn't have the killer instinct to take a good enough team above that level, either, and he's starting to wade into that territory for me. There's offseason left to accomplish things, but the Cubs haven't shown any initiative to acquire the types of impact talent that was available, either in FA or trade, in long-term contract land or trading for players with one year left. At some point the Cubs need to begin to be okay with trading from their prospect capital, with being okay at going after the best of the best. There will never be a perfect player at a perfect time. It's time for Jed Hoyer to get a little irrational. 

Very good thoughts and well written.

Yesterday the cubs promoted Megan Jones to V.P. of baseball strategy. 

My first thoughts: I didn't know a position like this existed.

And in all sincerity, 1908, I wish you were cubs vp of baseball strategy. I think I'd be in a happier frame of mind

[ToolDRT]

2 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The Dodgers have a 100 million dollar head start every year on every other team in MLB thanks to their TV contract, and they still tried(and failed thanks to Bauer shenanigans) to get under the luxury tax this past year.

But that was knowing they’re probably going over the tax for quite a while now. Honestly, I’m not opposed to sitting out the market some years. Some of us on psd even discussed making last offseason very quiet (think Abreu/Turner types) and going big this year. My issue is at a certain point you need to go for it hard and if it doesn’t work out, you might have to throw more money at it next time. 
 

Being a large market with a large payroll is our only advantage. If you refuse to use that advantage you’re gonna be a fine, if not mediocre team forever. 

What we keep doing is spending enough money where we have a large payroll, but it’s tied into multiple safe players like Tallion and Happ. Neither of which I would have signed. Everything is about value with this organization and at a point they need to realize that paying the mega deal to a Soto might be risky the latter half of the deal, but provides more value and upside than freaking Matt Chapman. 

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Interesting, just came here to post this.

It's not unreasonable but I don't really think I want Glasnow at those years and price.

I think it's pretty wild for a guy with his track record.  15-20m AAV plus lots of incentives would make more sense.

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, morrisjon said:

Wow. I have no idea if this is the new norm or if the Dodgers are just outbidding themselves but that extension is insane. 

They're just throwing money at good talent at this point.  He's elite when he pitches and that seems like mostly what they care about.

[Irrelevant Dude]

7 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The Dodgers have a 100 million dollar head start every year on every other team in MLB thanks to their TV contract

Yeah, but just wait until that deal runs out... in 2039.

[Stratos]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:57 AM, 1908_Cubs said:

The word irrational wasn't chosen for it's truest definition of the word, but the way Andrew Friedman used it. Essentially, that unless you get "irrational" or go beyond what you were originally comfortable with, you'll always finish second on every player you want. And yes, Theo was irrational in that sense. Torres for Chapman was an overpay. A necessary overpay, but an overpay. And while I still think on the day of the trade the Cubs had logic behind Jimenez/Cease, we could also claim that was a bit of an irrational overpay. Let's also not forget, while we typically remember that Heyward was a "seven" year contract, to get that done, the Cubs offered one of the earlier opt-outs; essentially letting Heyward walk after just a few seasons if he was still good (sadly didn't work out). They won a bidding war with Boston for Lester. In some aspects, like a deadline deal for a true WS favorites, there are things that Hoyer hasn't been in a position to do yet, but others of these he's been in a position to make, and has yet to do that. 

No one has asked the Cubs to buy high and sell low. No one here is confused as to how this works. Let's stop moving goalposts of my post. My post isn't a misunderstanding of how being a VP of baseball ops should work in theory, it's questioning whether or not Jed Hoyer has the killer instinct to go out and win bidding wars for elite talents, has the stomach for the types of trades in which real prospect capital is leaving for real established MLB talent, which are two things you need if you're going to run a top-5 market in baseball. Thus far, even when he "wins" a free agent contract like Swanson, I think it would be fair to ask "who exactly was he bidding against when that contract was signed?" There was some maybe rumored interest from LA and maybe some rumored interest from Atlanta...but did the Cubs win that so much as Swanson and the Cubs were the best remaining fit? It's been a quality piece of business in year one, and I'll concede that, and it's not the point of that question. The question is the process. 

Jed Hoyer's managed to sell a lot of people on his vision. That's great. I say this as someone who's defended Hoyer many times in the past...his vision is waning on me, If you want to keep believing in the process, that's fine and your choice. But Jed Hoyer wouldn't be the first, or the last, guy in charge of a franchise who simply didn't have the killer instinct to take a good enough team above that level, either, and he's starting to wade into that territory for me. There's offseason left to accomplish things, but the Cubs haven't shown any initiative to acquire the types of impact talent that was available, either in FA or trade, in long-term contract land or trading for players with one year left. At some point the Cubs need to begin to be okay with trading from their prospect capital, with being okay at going after the best of the best. There will never be a perfect player at a perfect time. It's time for Jed Hoyer to get a little irrational. 

I think a GM's job regarding contracts is to maximize the number of wins per dollar spent, regardless of payroll.  I think Jed has been pretty good at that so far.

I think in FA he looks at all the good players they're interested in to inquire on, puts a price value on all of them, and usually signs the guy who comes in at the best price per projected value.  If Swanson cost over 200m and Turner came in at less years and money than he did he would have signed Turner.  I don't see anything wrong with this, every player has a value and a price, there's lots of good players available every winter to sign so I don't typically see a need to overpay for guys.  Even top players are just a number on a page like the rest, it's all a math equation.

He hasn't been perfect at this.  He signed Mancini and arguably Smyly over value and we've all complained about it since the day they were signed.

I think there's times he needs to overpay if we have no choice and makes sense from a cost-benefit analysis.  He usually buys relievers with the same value-oriented approach, which to an extent is fine, but we went into 2023 with a lack of late-inning relief depth so I think he went too cheap there, and Jed didn't grab us the quality of relievers we clearly needed last trade deadline to get us to the playoffs.  I remember Jed mentioning that the cost of relievers at the deadline was too high for them, but an overpay is better than nothing at all and leaving tons of value in the minors while the MLB team flounders a whole season, especially when he's already acquired Candelario.

Re: Trading Cubs prospects for established players, I guess that remains to be seen.  Some of these guys will need to be moved because they're starting to pile up in Iowa.  Maybe he values good prospects more highly than most GM's compared to an established player with 1-3 years of control left?