Article: Which of These Cody Bellinger Deals Would You Do?

[Matthew Trueblood]

Say you're Jed Hoyer. For the next few minutes, make yourself Jed Hoyer, and pretend you're negotiating with Scott Boras. It's time to make a deal (or not) to bring back the best player on the 2023 Cubs.

Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports

"Hi, Jed, it's Scott," Scott says, because apparently it's 1997 and you don't have his number saved on a digital screen that lights up before you answer the phone. "Cody Bellinger is really excited about the possibility of coming back to Chicago, but we have some other interest, some other offers, and I want to give you options based on the other deals out there."

Look, are those other interested teams and juicy offers real? Who knows? If you did--if anyone did--Boras wouldn't be worth half a billion dollars just on the commissions he's raked in by pushing dozens of guys' net worth well into nine figures, in their own right. What Boras knows is what you, Jed Hoyer, know: the clock is ticking, The big names are coming off the board. The 2024 Cubs aren't any good right now, and while there are many ways you could bolster the roster between now and Opening Day, many of those avenues run right through Boras. You can't dodge him or defer this showdown any longer. You ask him what he's thinking.

"Well, like I said, Cody's interested in being a Cub for years to come, so we want to discuss a couple of different structures that would make him pass up what the Mari---sorry, coughed there, what some other people we've talked to have offered," Boras says. Yeah, right. The Mariners aren't offering Bellinger what Boras wants for him. Ugh. Or are they? See, this is why he wins. God, why can't Octagon peel someone away from this guy now and then? You love the Octagon guys. They're easy.

"We could make Cody a Cub for seven years for $196 million," Boras continues. "But I'm sympathetic to your position around the luxury tax, and I want to help you out there. We really feel excited about a potential structure where Cody and the Cubs make a long-term commitment to each other, for $220 million over 10 years."

Oh. Oh, ok. See, that's not so bad. Look, you're not going to do either of those deals. But you knew this was going to be the range, when he eventually got real with you about numbers. Two years ago, he got Kris Bryant $182 million over seven years. That was from the Rockies, who massively outbid the rest of the league, and it's gone horrifically since then, but those aren't the kinds of facts you or anyone else can get Boras to acknowledge. He simply worms out of that trap, every time. 

No, what Boras is going to say is that the market has only inflated a bit since the Bryant deal, and that Bellinger is younger and more athletic than Bryant was back then. He's going to say Bellinger's injuries were more acute and less likely to affect his future than Bryant's were. He's only half-right, but he's going to turn that into 55 percent and win the staredown if you force one, so you have to meet him halfway. That seven-year, $182-million mark is his absolute floor for Bellinger, and he's very confident that he's going to come in higher than that.

You like seven-year deals, so right away, that's where you gravitate. You're no A.J. Preller. Actually, Merrill got you an Obvious Shirt for Christmas that literally says, "NOT A.J. PRELLER," because you tell her so often what a fiend that guy is. You're not some desperate overbidder, trying to keep the competitive-balance tax number on a deal down so that you can sign another deal just like this next winter. Scott would love that, wouldn't he? He expects you to fork over this much to his clients every offseason. He doesn't think you know it, but he keeps making back-channel overtures to the Ricketts family, because he knows they're the ones who will crack and give in to him.

On the other hand, this alternative structure doesn't just save you a couple million dollars. Depending on how Scott is willing to structure it, you could realize a full $6 million in annual average value savings, which means more actual dollars to spend as well as more flexibility around the tax thresholds with which you expect to flirt in the next several seasons. Paying Bellinger $28 million per year, given the likelihood that he's confined to first base for you within a year or two and the somewhat tepid batted-ball data underlying his power production from 2023, makes you pretty uneasy. This is no Dansby Swanson situation, where modest offensive production is no great worry. Cranking that salary all the way down to $22 million annually would line him right up with Ian Happ. That's not superstar money. In fact, you're a little surprised Boras is even interested at that price. He usually wants to lengthen a deal like this only if he keeps the AAV essentially intact. You decide to confer with your top baseball people, plus Carter Hawkins, for appearances' sake, and get back to him.

Big mistake. Huge. Two days later, you re-connect with Boras, and the predictable has happened.

"Hey, Jed," Scott says half-apologetically. "Our situation did change a little bit, here. A giant offer just came in." (Who does this guy think he's talking to? Leave the pun work on the little stool at the Winter Meetings, man.) "Cody was awfully impressed by the pitch we heard yesterday, and we need to adjust some of the terms we discussed."

You almost hang up on the spot. This series of phone calls could be texts. It's not like you hadn't been doing this dance for a month, anyway. You were set on trying to talk him down from $196 million and getting Bellinger locked in at $185 million over seven years, with an option for 2031 that would push the deal to $200 million and give Boras his vanity number. This, you can just tell, is going to completely bork that plan.

"We'd still be open to putting Cody back in your lineup for a long time, but we need to start our discussions at $203 million. We can do that over seven years, or we can make it $231 million over 11."

Yeah. Well, naturally. After all, he's got the Mariners and the Giants in the frame, and he'll let Jon Heyman and whoever else wants to jump into the mix keep the Blue Jays alive as a possibility. The Angels are a possibility. He'll find a mystery team if he needs one. These numbers are pretty much as low as they're going to go. While everyone else's asking prices inexorably (if incrementally) fall as the winter wears on, Boras manages to hold his steady. Who cares if the rumors of $250 million or $300 million were always just anchors to drag the public discussion (and, by the relentless, irrational current of these things, the non-public parameters of negotiations) in his direction? Now, after he's successfully killed some time and let the market narrow your options for him, he's managed to work him way pretty close to those figures, and you lack the leverage to pull him back under the magic number of $200 million.

He's really inviting you to pull the trigger on that bigger deal, though, with the new terms. Now, the shorter version of the deal results in a $29-million AAV for Bellinger, and the longer one is only $21 million. You hate to give him the satisfaction, but it's hard to swallow that big an extra payout per year just to avoid those last few years. God, are you going to have to confine the Preller t-shirt to around-the-house use?

No. No, you've got your principles, and it's time to fight back a bit. Your leverage is thin, but it's not imaginary. You play your ace in the hole: Seven years, $189 million, but you'll offer Bellinger both a no-trade clause and a pair of opt-outs, after the second and fourth years of the contract. That would allow Bellinger to hit free agency again at 30 or 32, if he so chose. You're envisioning:

• $21 million in 2024
• $27 million in 2025
• $31 million each in 2026-28
• $27 million in 2029
• $21 million in 2030

That would mean passing up $141 million over five years if Bellinger opted out the first time, or $79 million over three years if he did so the second time. It's a lot of flexibility for him, and it really takes some of the fun out of this for you, but this structure would force him to think hard about walking away even if the next two years go well. Two years after that, he'd be a lot more incentivized to walk away, but by then, you figure that wouldn't be the worst thing. Plus, you could always circle back into the bidding if that happened. By then, you'd be in the habit of each other, right?

Boras has read the text you sent with the rough terms, and he's got you on hold, but you're going to hear back soon. It's time to do your own pause-and-reflect. 

Let's you and I step out of our Jed Hoyer skinsuits, now. Let's do some thinking of our very own. That bit of hacky semi-fiction laid bare the basics of the pas de deux going on between Hoyer and Boras right now. Boras really is going to demand at least $182 million over seven seasons from any team interested in Bellinger. His case for Bellinger being more desirable than Bryant is imperfect, but it's going to hold up.

Maybe even that is too rich for you. On Saturday, Bruce Levine said on 670 The Score that he envisioned the Cubs offering Bellinger only five or six years, at anywhere from $27 million to $30 million per year. They can dream, anyway, and they can draw their line there if they want. Bellinger will just end up on the Giants, or the Mariners, or the Angels, or the Blue Jays, or somewhere even more unexpected. You can opt to disdain and ignore price tags in the range I described here. But they are real. So, let's run down the deals I proposed in this exercise.

• 7 years, $196-203 million
• 10 years, $220 million
• 11 years, $231 million
• 7 years, $182-189 million, but with multiple opt-outs

Are any of those deals interesting to you? Would you trade the extra few years of money that could be bad, or even dead, in order to keep AAV down and give the Cubs greater flexibility during the first few years of a Bellinger deal? Or would you want to keep the term and the dollars committed to a minimum, even if it meant yielding some of the upside of Bellinger's remaining prime seasons back to the player and his agent? That's the most interesting discussion left around his free agency, so jump in and help us have it.

View full article

[Jason Ross]

If those are the four contracts I'd have to offer I'd pass. Three of those deals are incredible hard no's (the first three). Bellinger anything approaching $200m is far to risky for someone who's got weird batted ball data. That feels like "we have to keep him!" more than a prudent contract. And for a team who's petrified of 10 year deals, this feels like the absolute wrong 10 year deal to break that rule for. The closest thing I'd sign is that last deal, but even then, with the opt outs, you're throwing a ton of risk in there as opt outs are decidedly player friendly (which in terms of labor is good, but for this exercise, is not). 

End result unless the price comes down to the $160m-$170m range over 7 years (with no opt outs) or the Cubs can get in on a 2021-Correa-esque 3 year, very high AAV, lots of opt out type of a deal, I'd pass. I'm someone who wants the Cubs to take agency and make this their offseason, but Bellinger's asks feel quite out of whack with the type of player I expect him to be moving forward. Which isn't to suggest I think he's a bad player, but there's enough risk tied to his batted ball data, and enough premium placed on his ability to play CF (and yes, there will be opportunities for him to play CF, but other teams will, in theory, pay him like an all-time CF over 5+ years of a contract and I don't think the Cubs can commit to that as long as they're high on Pete Crow-Armstrong). 

The Cubs have waited the market out this much at this point, and while I have a lot of concerns with the Cubs (seeming) lack of agency in their plan, there's no reason to abandon that strategy to sign Bellinger to a $200m deal. If this is the path the Cubs want to take, then take it. See the "wait the market out" to the logical conclusion. Bellinger's market is already murky. The Giants have added a center fielder, the Blue Jays have added one as well. While I don't expect either team to be "out" their "must have" on Bellinger has lessoned. Outside of those two teams, other teams who may be interested are hard to fully identify.  It may result in the Cubs not signing Bellinger, or another team massively overbidding and giving in to Boras, but this offseason should never have been "Bellinger or bust". If you want to wait the market out, you'll have to lose someone.

[Bertz]

None of these feel like a good idea.  Maybe the last one if it's some sort of complicated swell-opt or something, but even then probably no.  I'm extremely into Bellinger on something like Carlos Correa's first deal with the Twins (3-4 years, high AAV, opt-outs after every year), but not really under any sort of long term deal.

Relatedly, I think history is going to look back at AJ Preller's '22-'23 offseason as just an unmitigated disaster, nearly as bad as his very first one where he traded every prospect with a pulse for Matt Kemp et al.  Giving decade+ long deals to guys outside of the Harper/Machado/Seager class of FA's is so unbelievably dumb.  The early extensions to Machado and Darvish being a mess was easy to see coming as well.

[Matthew Trueblood]

2 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

If those are the four contracts I'd have to offer I'd pass. Three of those deals are incredible hard no's (the first three). Bellinger anything approaching $200m is far to risky for someone who's got weird batted ball data. That feels like "we have to keep him!" more than a prudent contract. And for a team who's petrified of 10 year deals, this feels like the absolute wrong 10 year deal to break that rule for. The closest thing I'd sign is that last deal, but even then, with the opt outs, you're throwing a ton of risk in there as opt outs are decidedly player friendly (which in terms of labor is good, but for this exercise, is not). 

End result unless the price comes down to the $160m-$170m range over 7 years (with no opt outs) or the Cubs can get in on a 2021-Correa-esque 3 year, very high AAV, lots of opt out type of a deal, I'd pass. I'm someone who wants the Cubs to take agency and make this their offseason, but Bellinger's asks feel quite out of whack with the type of player I expect him to be moving forward. Which isn't to suggest I think he's a bad player, but there's enough risk tied to his batted ball data, and enough premium placed on his ability to play CF (and yes, there will be opportunities for him to play CF, but other teams will, in theory, pay him like an all-time CF over 5+ years of a contract and I don't think the Cubs can commit to that as long as they're high on Pete Crow-Armstrong). 

The Cubs have waited the market out this much at this point, and while I have a lot of concerns with the Cubs (seeming) lack of agency in their plan, there's no reason to abandon that strategy to sign Bellinger to a $200m deal. If this is the path the Cubs want to take, then take it. See the "wait the market out" to the logical conclusion. Bellinger's market is already murky. The Giants have added a center fielder, the Blue Jays have added one as well. While I don't expect either team to be "out" their "must have" on Bellinger has lessoned. Outside of those two teams, other teams who may be interested are hard to fully identify.  It may result in the Cubs not signing Bellinger, or another team massively overbidding and giving in to Boras, but this offseason should never have been "Bellinger or bust". If you want to wait the market out, you'll have to lose someone.

This is right about where I'd land, too. I don't share Jed's automatic aversion to long deals, and to me, the batted-ball data has been overblown. But what I DO think is important and worrisome is that Bellinger just isn't a center fielder anymore. He was below-average out there last year, for me. He could still be solid in a corner, but the Cubs don't need him there. I think he's pretty much a first baseman, and for a first baseman, the offense isn't exceptional, even if you believe (as I generally do) that his real production last year is sustainable and that Statcast isn't destiny. I would just let him go, because I absolutely believe Boras gets a deal for him that outstrips what the Cubs would be willing to sufficiently support. But we'll see.

[Matthew Trueblood]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

None of these feel like a good idea.  Maybe the last one if it's some sort of complicated swell-opt or something, but even then probably no.  I'm extremely into Bellinger on something like Carlos Correa's first deal with the Twins (3-4 years, high AAV, opt-outs after every year), but not really under any sort of long term deal.

Relatedly, I think history is going to look back at AJ Preller's '22-'23 offseason as just an unmitigated disaster, nearly as bad as his very first one where he traded every prospect with a pulse for Matt Kemp et al.  Giving decade+ long deals to guys outside of the Harper/Machado/Seager class of FA's is so unbelievably dumb.  The early extensions to Machado and Darvish being a mess was easy to see coming as well.

And I think Boras is thinking exactly the opposite: that a very long-term deal is in order. So, I'm with you. 

The Darvish deal, especially. That was insane. At least Machado is still in his prime, and had the opt-out to force their hand a bit. Still trying to figure out what he was thinking with Darvish. 

[Jason Ross]

46 minutes ago, Matt Trueblood said:

This is right about where I'd land, too. I don't share Jed's automatic aversion to long deals, and to me, the batted-ball data has been overblown. But what I DO think is important and worrisome is that Bellinger just isn't a center fielder anymore. He was below-average out there last year, for me. He could still be solid in a corner, but the Cubs don't need him there. I think he's pretty much a first baseman, and for a first baseman, the offense isn't exceptional, even if you believe (as I generally do) that his real production last year is sustainable and that Statcast isn't destiny. I would just let him go, because I absolutely believe Boras gets a deal for him that outstrips what the Cubs would be willing to sufficiently support. But we'll see.

I think the batted ball data is overblown by some, as I don't think it's a death knell, but it remains somewhat concerning. It paints the picture of someone who's likely to fall into that 110-120 wRC+ range instead of that 130-140 wRC+ range he was in last year. That's still a hitter, but less than the definitive mid-order bat he was last year. I think there are exceptions to the rules, but generally speaking, those exceptions are really hard to predict out their future. Bellinger appears to be able to succeed with less exciting statcast data, but how repeatable that is, and where the fall-off-point is, is hard to tell. Players on the extreme are super cool and fun, but far riskier, IMO. Seven+ year commitments on weird data...worries more more than a seven+ year commit on someone you can more reasonably predict out.

But yeah, I think in the end, the Cubs best bet is to allow Bellinger to find greener pastures (pun intended). If his market never hits and you can get him on a $35m AAV for 3 years with an opt-out each season? Circle back. And I think that's a possibility, but isn't overly likely today.

[Rcal10]

I think I would do 6 or 7 years at an average of $24 to $27M with no opt outs. Yes, it is probably too long, but not awful. I think he will hit fine. Maybe the 6 gets him $27M a year. The 7 he gets $24M? I don’t know. Just not in favor of losing him because Jed would to 6/$150 but Bellinger wanted an extra year at a similar annual or Bellinger would do 6 but he wanted $162. If they believe in Bellinger and want him, the $2M more a year doesn’t matter, and nor does the extra year. 

[Stratos]

None.

[Stratos]

I could see something around what Swanson got.  6 years would be great, through age 33, but 7 years is ok.  He lost some WAR playing a lot of 1B last year. 

Probably more like 4.5 WAR last year.  But I think he overachieved last year, he seemed to have a lot of luck on base hits.  His expected stats were a huge drop from the actual stats.

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I could see something around what Swanson got.  6 years would be great, through age 33, but 7 years is ok.  He lost some WAR playing a lot of 1B last year. 

Probably more like 4.5 WAR last year.  But I think he overachieved last year, he seemed to have a lot of luck on base hits.  His expected stats were a huge drop from the actual stats.

That is what I am saying. Swanson type deal. Sure, it might be too much. Not that awful that it would cripple the team, however.  I don’t think the Cubs should worry about a small overpay for a quality player, if they want him. 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I could see something around what Swanson got.  6 years would be great, through age 33, but 7 years is ok.  He lost some WAR playing a lot of 1B last year. 

Probably more like 4.5 WAR last year.  But I think he overachieved last year, he seemed to have a lot of luck on base hits.  His expected stats were a huge drop from the actual stats.

He got a lot of hits the other way with 2 strikes and just punching the ball the other way. I don’t consider that luck. I do think it hurts his EV and hard hit rate and those sort of stats. But to me it is very obtainable for him if he continues to cut down on his 2 strike swing. 

[Stratos]

36 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

He got a lot of hits the other way with 2 strikes and just punching the ball the other way. I don’t consider that luck. I do think it hurts his EV and hard hit rate and those sort of stats. But to me it is very obtainable for him if he continues to cut down on his 2 strike swing. 

I'm not worried about the EV because of the 2-strike contact approach as you say.  But I do think a lot of weakly hit balls on 2-strikes fell in to the point of him being a bit lucky.  Everything just seemed to fall in.  His BABIP is a bit high but nothing extraordinary however.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Stratos

[Jason Ross]

Mike Petriello, who's among my absolute favorites, wrote a really, really good article on Bellinger today that I think should be read. It dives into his statcast data, what teams are going to look at, and what we can expect Bellinger to be if the batted ball profile of 2023 is the Cody Bellinger we get moving forward.

Link to the article here.

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Mike Petriello, who's among my absolute favorites, wrote a really, really good article on Bellinger today that I think should be read. It dives into his statcast data, what teams are going to look at, and what we can expect Bellinger to be if the batted ball profile of 2023 is the Cody Bellinger we get moving forward.

Link to the article here.

That is an interesting article. So, let me ask this, what if Bellinger found a happy medium beteeen his projected numbers and his actual numbers. What is he worth at say .285/.340/.460? Basically some of the “luck” he experienced last year is gone. But his approach can still produce that sort of line. Is that a 115 OPS+ guy? Maybe a little more? Is that someone who might be worth the 6/$150M. Is it more like 6/$132M if he plays primarily in the outfield? I think we all agree he isn’t getting what Boras is suggesting. But might he be a solid sign at 6 years in the $130-$150 range? 

[imb]

he's probably a $25m a year guy or something like that but the cubs shouldn't even bother if they're not going to be a serious franchise otherwise. either try to be good for real or don't waste my time. 

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

That is an interesting article. So, let me ask this, what if Bellinger found a happy medium beteeen his projected numbers and his actual numbers. What is he worth at say .285/.340/.460? Basically some of the “luck” he experienced last year is gone. But his approach can still produce that sort of line. Is that a 115 OPS+ guy? Maybe a little more? Is that someone who might be worth the 6/$150M. Is it more like 6/$132M if he plays primarily in the outfield? I think we all agree he isn’t getting what Boras is suggesting. But might he be a solid sign at 6 years in the $130-$150 range? 

I've got him pegged somewhere as a 110-120 wRC+ hitter (in that 10-20% better than league average area that the article mentions). Which just isn't good enough for me if we're going to play at 1b over the course of that six year contract as his position for like 70% of it (or even worse, DH). As a primary CF'er that's a different story, but I don't think there's a reason, right now, to believe he's going to play a primary amount of his PA's in the OF with the Cubs over the course of that six years baring a trade we can't see on the horizon. 

I think the Swanson deal is around where I'd pay him as an OF'er. 7/$175m or so. 

I would be shocked to see him sign 6/$135m-150m. He'll either get closer to what he's looking for, or go Correa short term, high AAV, multi-opt out and hope a second year of results are on the horizon to help him get to that $200M+ area. I think the least likely scenario is that kind of a contract.

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Mike Petriello, who's among my absolute favorites, wrote a really, really good article on Bellinger today that I think should be read. It dives into his statcast data, what teams are going to look at, and what we can expect Bellinger to be if the batted ball profile of 2023 is the Cody Bellinger we get moving forward.

Link to the article here.

It's really hard to judge the guy by stats like EV and hard hit % when he's cutting down on his swing and just trying to put the ball in play with 2 strikes, and doing it.  That will skew those stats.

We should also be looking at max EV, which wasn't great for him either,  and how he hit the ball before 2 strikes.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Stratos said:

It's really hard to judge the guy by stats like EV and hard hit % when he's cutting down on his swing and just trying to put the ball in play with 2 strikes, and doing it.  That will skew those stats.

We should also be looking at max EV, which wasn't great for him either,  and how he hit the ball before 2 strikes.

Mike did all of that in that article. With that said, you're right we shouldn't focus in on a single number, but the totality of Bellinger's batted ball data are really hard to predict as being repeatable for a 130 wRC+ hitter. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's highly unlikely. Either his batted ball profile will get better (and while the two strike approach effects some things, it doesn't seem to be just a two-strike thing. His EV with less than two strikes wasn't particularly good) or his wRC+ will likely take a decent hit. Not to "worthless" but likely from ~35% better than average to the 10-20% range.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Mike did all of that in that article. With that said, you're right we shouldn't focus in on a single number, but the totality of Bellinger's batted ball data are really hard to predict as being repeatable for a 130 wRC+ hitter. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's highly unlikely. Either his batted ball profile will get better (and while the two strike approach effects some things, it doesn't seem to be just a two-strike thing. His EV with less than two strikes wasn't particularly good) or his wRC+ will likely take a decent hit. Not to "worthless" but likely from ~35% better than average to the 10-20% range.

Yes I skimmed the first half of the article and just now looked at the 2nd half, he does go through the 2-strike numbers etc.  Good article, agree, thanks for posting.

I don't think Bellinger has a ton of power.  I think i'd grade his tools as at least above average across the board, including hit and power tools.  His K% was very good and his AVG, he had a good ISO, he can lift the ball and get some HR that way which plays above the raw power.  Good outfielder, good first baseman, can throw and run, he can do everything on a diamond.  Seemed like he vibed really well with his teammates on a team that seemed to really gel together.

His power wasn't really an issue in 2022.  His K% spiked in 2021-22 and the AVG and overall production cratered, he seems to have total changed his approach last year and fixed the K% and AVG problems.  I think his BA and SLG will go down but I can't see him hitting .210 going forward.  He can hit 20 HR and .260-.280 with speed and defense.  Still worth signing.  Most teams will probably think he overachieved last year and be nervous about the previous seasons so hopefully it drives down his price a bit.

[Rob]

9 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

That is an interesting article. So, let me ask this, what if Bellinger found a happy medium beteeen his projected numbers and his actual numbers. What is he worth at say .285/.340/.460? Basically some of the “luck” he experienced last year is gone. But his approach can still produce that sort of line. Is that a 115 OPS+ guy? Maybe a little more? Is that someone who might be worth the 6/$150M. Is it more like 6/$132M if he plays primarily in the outfield? I think we all agree he isn’t getting what Boras is suggesting. But might he be a solid sign at 6 years in the $130-$150 range? 

It's late and I've had too many drinks in me to try to do real math. But if he's a slightly above average bat and glove in CF, that's probably a 3 or 3.5 fWAR player. At $8M per win, that's $24-28M during his prime. So give him a couple more years around that mark and then bring him down half a win a year.

If we are at 6/$130M I'm amenable to a deal. More years or money make me a bit twitchy, particularly if he's being eyed for 1B.

That said, for all the red flags in his production, he's shown a boatload of skills at the major league level. So there's no single way for him to produce at put up that 3-3.5 fWAR. He could implode on all the things we are worried about and suddenly rediscover how to hit fastballs like he did when he was MVP and still be worth the contract. That's probably worth something, but I have a hard time quantifying it.

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

It's late and I've had too many drinks in me to try to do real math. But if he's a slightly above average bat and glove in CF, that's probably a 3 or 3.5 fWAR player. At $8M per win, that's $24-28M during his prime. So give him a couple more years around that mark and then bring him down half a win a year.

If we are at 6/$130M I'm amenable to a deal. More years or money make me a bit twitchy, particularly if he's being eyed for 1B.

That said, for all the red flags in his production, he's shown a boatload of skills at the major league level. So there's no single way for him to produce at put up that 3-3.5 fWAR. He could implode on all the things we are worried about and suddenly rediscover how to hit fastballs like he did when he was MVP and still be worth the contract. That's probably worth something, but I have a hard time quantifying it.

Hard to see Bellinger getting as low as 6/130,  24m AAV over 6 years = 6/144.  Your numbers = 21.6m AAV, he'll get more and deserves it.

We have to remember that he played 421 innings (58 games) at 1B and only 686 innings at CF last year for the Cubs.  If he plays all his innings in CF last year we have to assume he would have put up at least 4.5 WAR or more.  Playing 1B has a substantial drag effect on WAR, worth negative runs.

He does everything well on the baseball field.  If we assume Happ-like bat value, but more speed and better glove/arm and can play a pretty good CF he's going to make more than Happ, who makes 20m AAV.  Happ is a 3.5 WAR player, and Bellinger is better.  I'd hope for 4 WAR.

[Rob]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

Hard to see Bellinger getting as low as 6/130,  24m AAV over 6 years = 6/144.  Your numbers = 21.6m AAV, he'll get more and deserves it.

We have to remember that he played 421 innings (58 games) at 1B and only 686 innings at CF last year for the Cubs.  If he plays all his innings in CF last year we have to assume he would have put up at least 4.5 WAR or more.  Playing 1B has a substantial drag effect on WAR, worth negative runs.

He does everything well on the baseball field.  If we assume Happ-like bat value, but more speed and better glove/arm and can play a pretty good CF he's going to make more than Happ, who makes 20m AAV.  Happ is a 3.5 WAR player, and Bellinger is better.  I'd hope for 4 WAR.

He did lose a lot of value last year due to playing 1B, but he gained a lot of value through what is probably just random variance. While I too would hope for 4 WAR, I don't see enough to feel comfortable projecting him to that number.

I like Cody Bellinger. I was a big fan of signing him last offseason. And if they resign him this offseason, I will happily root for him and hope last year was a building block towards him regaining his MVP form. But on the balance of risks, I feel as though everything above approximately 6/$130M is just wasted money he's unlikely to ever earn. At 6/$150M, that's basically a rounding error. At his asking price of roughly 8/$220M, suddenly that's a ton of cash that could have a substantial impact on how we're able to build a team around him going forward.

[Stratos]

6 hours ago, Rob said:

He did lose a lot of value last year due to playing 1B, but he gained a lot of value through what is probably just random variance. While I too would hope for 4 WAR, I don't see enough to feel comfortable projecting him to that number.

I like Cody Bellinger. I was a big fan of signing him last offseason. And if they resign him this offseason, I will happily root for him and hope last year was a building block towards him regaining his MVP form. But on the balance of risks, I feel as though everything above approximately 6/$130M is just wasted money he's unlikely to ever earn. At 6/$150M, that's basically a rounding error. At his asking price of roughly 8/$220M, suddenly that's a ton of cash that could have a substantial impact on how we're able to build a team around him going forward.

Happ is 3.5 WAR player.   If we assume Bellinger can put up equal wRC+ and is a better fielder, thrower, and baserunner at a more valuable position he should put up more WAR than Happ unless injured or playing 1B.

[squally1313]

16 hours ago, Stratos said:

Happ is 3.5 WAR player.   If we assume Bellinger can put up equal wRC+ and is a better fielder, thrower, and baserunner at a more valuable position he should put up more WAR than Happ unless injured or playing 1B.

We can't assume that though, and the couple projections that are out for 2024 on Fangraphs actually have Happ as the better hitter (mostly driven by walk rate, where Happ's was almost double Bellinger's last year), 112 to 108. As much as you can 'predict' health, Happ has missed 20 games in the last 3 years (8 in his last 2), compared to Bellinger's 117 (50 in his last 2). 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

We can't assume that though, and the couple projections that are out for 2024 on Fangraphs actually have Happ as the better hitter (mostly driven by walk rate, where Happ's was almost double Bellinger's last year), 112 to 108. As much as you can 'predict' health, Happ has missed 20 games in the last 3 years (8 in his last 2), compared to Bellinger's 117 (50 in his last 2). 

Those steamer projections suck imo.  Agree Happ is healthier.   But I think it's reasonable for Bellinger to put up around 115-120 wRC+