Article: I Think It's Time We Have the Blake Snell Talk

[Joj]

On 1/17/2024 at 1:27 PM, Tryptamine said:

I'm all in favor of bullpen help, but dropping 20 million of the remaining 55m on Hader isn't the way. At that point, if they signed Bellinger the money is nearly all gone when you figure they're probably going to save 5ish million for the deadline. I think it's much more prudent to shop in the Stephenson range with the high end being Robertson. 

I'd much rather see them spend the money than give up young players.  I'm still annoyed by Epstein's Chapman and Wade Davis deals.  Besides, THEY HAVE MONEY.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

9 minutes ago, Joj said:

The team's offense came out of nowhere in 2023.  They played over their heads quite a bit.  And, again, we saw the inconsistency in the 2nd half.  There's nothing wrong with admitting that.

There is something wrong with admitting that, because those things are not particularly true.   Some players played better than expected, some played worse or spent more time hurt, it wasn't aberrant on the whole.  They also weren't any more inconsistent in their scoring than other teams, especially in the 2nd half when they were a top offense in the NL every month.

 

3 minutes ago, Joj said:

I'd much rather see them spend the money than give up young players.  I'm still annoyed by Epstein's Chapman and Wade Davis deals.  Besides, THEY HAVE MONEY.

Signing Hader requires them to give up a young player, maybe more than one depending on how you want to draw the line between prospect and minor league flyer/flotsam.

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, Joj said:

I'd much rather see them spend the money than give up young players.  I'm still annoyed by Epstein's Chapman and Wade Davis deals.  Besides, THEY HAVE MONEY.

If Theo doesn’t get Chapman the Cubs would be on year 116 without a championship. So I have no idea why that deal annoyed you. And they aren’t spending $20M and giving Hader 5 years at that average. And I wouldn’t either.

[Joj]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Signing Hader requires them to give up a young player, maybe more than one depending on how you want to draw the line between prospect and minor league flyer/flotsam.

I'm far more interested in top-end talent than piddly compensatory picks that almost always amount to nothing.

[Rcal10]

On 1/17/2024 at 12:27 PM, Tryptamine said:

I'm all in favor of bullpen help, but dropping 20 million of the remaining 55m on Hader isn't the way. At that point, if they signed Bellinger the money is nearly all gone when you figure they're probably going to save 5ish million for the deadline. I think it's much more prudent to shop in the Stephenson range with the high end being Robertson. 

If you believe the Cubs will go over the first LT line the idea of them holding back money doesn’t exist. They can go to a number Ricketts is comfortable with and have plenty extra for the trade deadline. That said, I don’t want them to spend $20M a year and give Hader a 5 or 6 year deal. I would much rather add 2 bats and a solid pen arm (at a lower cost than Hader). Or even 1 bat, one one pen arm and another starting pitcher. 

[Joj]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

If Theo doesn’t get Chapman the Cubs would be on year 116 without a championship. So I have no idea why that deal annoyed you. And they aren’t spending $20M and giving Hader 5 years at that average. And I wouldn’t either.

Nah.  There would've been someone else in that spot.  I watched every single game.  Everyone who did knows that Chapman was anything but solid.  Especially during the playoffs.

[Joj]

Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

[CubinNY]

6 minutes ago, Joj said:

Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

I'd love to have had Soler. Also, Davis hated Chicago. I think he's kind of a dickhead. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

9 minutes ago, Joj said:

Nah.  There would've been someone else in that spot.  I watched every single game.  Everyone who did knows that Chapman was anything but solid.  Especially during the playoffs.

Who? Strop and Rondon pitched 4 combined innings in the WS. 

[mul21]

8 minutes ago, Joj said:

Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

A. Do you know they didn't offer him a contract?

B. You can't make a player sign with your team when he clearly wants to be elsewhere.

C. You're new here, maybe back off on the attitude a bit and get a feel for the board before you come out swinging and belittling people.

[We Got The Whole 9]

9 minutes ago, Joj said:

Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

Chapman was so good he earned an 85M contract. Jorge Soler had nowhere to play on the Cubs because of the colossal blunder of the Jason Heyward contract. 

[Joj]

10 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I'd love to have had Soler. Also, Davis hated Chicago. I think he's kind of a dickhead. 

Yeah, I remember Davis being pretty prickly.  Pitched well enough, even as a rental.  I hear you on Soler.  It took a couple seasons but those 48 HR 117 RBI in 2019 could've come in handy.

[Joj]

11 minutes ago, mul21 said:

A. Do you know they didn't offer him a contract?

LOL  You think they did? 

Quote

B. You can't make a player sign with your team when he clearly wants to be elsewhere.

Thanks so much for explaining.

Quote

C. You're new here, maybe back off on the attitude a bit and get a feel for the board before you come out swinging and belittling people.

Thanks so much for having me, this seems great.

Were any of you guys on the old Cubs board?  Think I had 15k or something there.  Maybe 20.  It was a huge waste of time, honestly.  Anyway, I'm not new to message boards.  Or dealing with trolls.

[We Got The Whole 9]

4 minutes ago, Joj said:

Yeah, I remember Davis being pretty prickly.  Pitched well enough, even as a rental.  I hear you on Soler.  It took a couple seasons but those 48 HR 117 RBI in 2019 could've come in handy.

Ah, so what about 2017 and 2018? Soler gave the Royals 30 games in 2017 and was so bad he almost accrued -1 war in that short time. In 2018 he gave them 60 games and barely provided a half of a win in value. When they signed Heyward, RF was taken, and it was a decision between Soler and Schwarber for who would get LF. They chose Soler. He was valuable enough to get one year of a top-end closer. That was a good use of resources IMO. You can't just cherry-pick the one good season he had. You would have had to have lived with the 2 seasons of horsefeathers before it. 

[Joj]

Just now, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Ah, so what about 2017 and 2018? Soler gave the Royals 30 games in 2017 and was so bad he almost accrued -1 war in that short time. In 2018 he gave them 60 games and barely provided a half of a win in value. When they signed Heyward, RF was taken, and it was a decision between Soler and Schwarber for who would get LF. They chose Soler. He was valuable enough to get one year of a top-end closer. That was a good use of resources IMO. You can't just cherry-pick the one good season he had. You would have had to have lived with the 2 seasons of horsefeathers before it. 

Thought I already addressed all of that in one sentence.

I don't agree with the decision to trade a bunch of talent for closers when you're a large market team who can afford to sign someone.  Especially when they are one-year rentals.  A better use of resources would've been to spend FA money and either keep or trade prospects for more pressing, longer-term needs.  If a large-market team is scared to flex their financial muscles they immediately lose the inherent edge they have on the Miami Marlins of the world.  Spending FA money is often times cheaper, ironically.

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Ah, so what about 2017 and 2018? Soler gave the Royals 30 games in 2017 and was so bad he almost accrued -1 war in that short time. In 2018 he gave them 60 games and barely provided a half of a win in value. When they signed Heyward, RF was taken, and it was a decision between Soler and Schwarber for who would get LF. They chose Soler. He was valuable enough to get one year of a top-end closer. That was a good use of resources IMO. You can't just cherry-pick the one good season he had. You would have had to have lived with the 2 seasons of horsefeathers before it. 

Adding to that: Soler was a clear, defined, DH by 2019, posting a -9 DRS in just 400 some odd innings. In 2019, the Cubs did not have the benefit of a DH position, so even in the scenario Soler had an OF position to play, he'd likely have given back huge swaths of value being a fish out of water. As well, a competing Cubs team was highly unlikely to turn over a position to someone fully in 2019 who had posted a -.3 fWAR as they entered 2019 the last two seasons, either. 

Soler has had a few nice seasons mish-mashed in a pretty up and down career as a DH. But it probably would have never really had a chance to have gotten off the ground had he been in Chicago for most of it. The Cubs were almost assuredly going to have to trade him at some point, and they probably cashed in on his peak value to the team by dealing him for Davis. 

[Joj]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

Adding to that: Soler was a clear, defined, DH by 2019, posting a -9 DRS in just 400 some odd innings. In 2019, the Cubs did not have the benefit of a DH position, so even in the scenario Soler had an OF position to play, he'd likely have given back huge swaths of value being a fish out of water. As well, a competing Cubs team was highly unlikely to turn over a position to someone fully in 2019 who had posted a -.3 fWAR as they entered 2019 the last two seasons, either. 

Soler has had a few nice seasons mish-mashed in a pretty up and down career as a DH. But it probably would have never really had a chance to have gotten off the ground had he been in Chicago for most of it. The Cubs were almost assuredly going to have to trade him at some point, and they probably cashed in on his peak value to the team by dealing him for Davis. 

I mean, we can sit around and pick nits all day long but my problem was with trading ANY of them for a one-year CP

[Rcal10]

53 minutes ago, Joj said:

Nah.  There would've been someone else in that spot.  I watched every single game.  Everyone who did knows that Chapman was anything but solid.  Especially during the playoffs.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I have seen on this board. If Chapman isn’t a Cub he goes to the Giants, most likely. If he is on the Giants the Cubs don’t come back in game 4. Chapman had a bad game 7. That was from overuse. You know why he was overused? They didn’t have anyone else. When else was Chapman anything but solid? Game 5 of the World Series he held 1 run lead for more than an 2 inning. He came in the game in the 7th. He shouldn’t have been used in game 6.
Stop acting like you are the only one who watches the Cubs and you are the smartest person in the room. You are not either of those things. 

Edited January 19, 2024 by Rcal10

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, Joj said:

I mean, we can sit around and pick nits all day long but my problem was with trading ANY of them for a one-year CP

I would say that's not "picking nits" but contextualizing. The reality is that even before the trade, Soler had been a massive negative in the OF. While fans were just getting ahold of things like DRS and more advanced metrics, we have to assume teams were leading the way here more and likely had identified Jorge Soler as being more of a DH than a non-DH, which would have limited his trade value to begin with. 

I agree with your bigger picture argument that the Chicago Cubs have not consistently acted within the context they should have: as a big market team less afraid to spend money. I don't, however, agree, that the Soler/Davis deal made little sense for the Cubs. I think they probably cashed in on his value fine. The reality is Jorge Soler wasn't really going to find a home here and sometimes you have to spend spare parts young players for more pressing needs. Could the Cubs have maybe just signed a leverage reliever? Maybe. They could have signed Chapman, though it seems like he really wanted to go back to the Yankees regardless. They could have signed 32 year old Mark Melancon who had, realistically, one good season under that four year contract as he battled injuries. It could have gone a few ways. It's always iffy getting locked into longer term multi-year deals with relievers; they're volatile as hell. I'm not sure I really fault the team for taking a spare part and turning it into a meaningful need.

[We Got The Whole 9]

7 minutes ago, Joj said:

Thought I already addressed all of that in one sentence.

I don't agree with the decision to trade a bunch of talent for closers when you're a large market team who can afford to sign someone.  Especially when they are one-year rentals.  A better use of resources would've been to spend FA money and either keep or trade prospects for more pressing, longer-term needs.  If a large-market team is scared to flex their financial muscles they immediately lose the inherent edge they have on the Miami Marlins of the world.  Spending FA money is often times cheaper, ironically.

Sign who? If you want to argue that they should have traded for Chapman before the Yankees did, I won't disagree. But failing that, who would you have signed that you think would have closed games in the playoffs for them?

[mul21]

3 minutes ago, Joj said:

Thought I already addressed all of that in one sentence.

I don't agree with the decision to trade a bunch of talent for closers when you're a large market team who can afford to sign someone.  Especially when they are one-year rentals.  A better use of resources would've been to spend FA money and either keep or trade prospects for more pressing, longer-term needs.  If a large-market team is scared to flex their financial muscles they immediately lose the inherent edge they have on the Miami Marlins of the world.  Spending FA money is often times cheaper, ironically.

So we've established that Chapman was never going to re-sign with the Cubs whether you're willing to admit that or not.  The other top relivers who were FA before the 2017 season:

Greg Holland: turns out this would have been a great signing but he was coming of TJS and no sure things.

Mark Melancon:  was bad on the 4 year deal he signed with the Giants.

Kenley Jansen:  was never leaving LA

Neftali Feliz: not a closer

Brett Cecil: not a closer

Brad Zeigler: not a closer

There was legit one guy who was an unknown quantity at the time who would have been a worthwhile signing that offseason who may have come to Chicago.

[mul21]

6 minutes ago, Joj said:

LOL  You are just a little ray of sunshine!  Thanks so much for your opinion little guy!

@Brock Beauchamp can you have a word with this guy?  He's having trouble fitting in is the most polite way I can put it.

[Joj]

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I agree with your bigger picture argument that the Chicago Cubs have not consistently acted within the context they should have: as a big market team less afraid to spend money. I don't, however, agree, that the Soler/Davis deal made sense for the Cubs. I think they probably cashed in on his value fine. The reality is Jorge Soler wasn't really going to find a home here and sometimes you have to spend spare parts young players for more pressing needs. Could the Cubs have maybe just signed a leverage reliever? Maybe. They could have signed Chapman, though it seems like he really wanted to go back to the Yankees regardless. They could have signed 32 year old Mark Melancon who had, realistically, one good season under that four year contract as he battled injuries. It could have gone a few ways. It's always iffy getting locked into longer term multi-year deals with relievers; they're volatile as hell. I'm not sure I really fault the team for taking a spare part and turning it into a meaningful need.

 

We're not very far from each other on this one.  Yeah, the Soler deal itself can certainly be justified for the reasons that you gave.  Maybe the problem comes from the cumulative effect of a few deals during that period.  The year before with Chapman (Gleyber Torres, etc) and that ridiculous Quintana deal (let's not even get into that one).  But my main problem was with the short-term, rental aspect.  If either of those CP had more than one year on their deal, maybe it's a different story.

[Joj]

7 minutes ago, mul21 said:

@Brock Beauchamp can you have a word with this guy?  He's having trouble fitting in is the most polite way I can put it.

LOL  Please do.  Note the personal attacks.  Thank you.

Edited January 19, 2024 by Joj

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, Joj said:

LOL  You are just a little ray of sunshine!  Thanks so much for your opinion little guy!

Nice comeback when you have no way of proving the Cubs made a mistake in trading for Chapman and had enough without him. He was very good in the playoffs. Only hiccups were a game they were winning 8-2 in the 9th against the Dodgers and for some reason he came in to pitch the 9th. And then game 7 (WS)after pitching 2.2 inning in game 5, pitching again in game 6 and then completely gassed in game 7. That said, they probably don’t even get to a game 7 if he isn’t on the team.