Red (Lodolo) vs Cubs (Brown): 6/2/24, 1:20pm

[Geographyhater8888]

$93 million cumulative AAV split between Swanson, Happ, Cody and Suzuki. A career 162 game 12 combined WAR/season, essentially 4 wins above average. For $30 million/year you can have Mookie Betts for around a 6 WAR. 
 

Terrible roster construction and value from a $230 million payroll.

Edited June 2, 2024 by Geographyhater8888
Wrong choice of words

[chibears55]

37 games left til the break, theyll need to win at least 20 to possibly stay in the WC hunt.

 

[UMFan83]

I still dont think Jed is even anywhere close to the hot seat, but in case I'm wrong he might want to get some of those vaunted position player prospects up to Chicago by the end of the year to produce a bit and show that your plan isn't doomed for failure.

[17 Seconds]

Just now, UMFan83 said:

I still dont think Jed is even anywhere close to the hot seat, but in case I'm wrong he might want to get some of those vaunted position player prospects up to Chicago by the end of the year to produce a bit and show that your plan isn't doomed for failure.

I have no confidence in hitting prospects that Jed picked

[UMFan83]

3 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

I have no confidence in hitting prospects that Jed picked

I think that there's enough of them that at least 2 of them are going to turn into above average major league players.  I'm just concerned that none of them will turn into premium MLB players.  PCA could but its going to be fielding/baserunning heavy vs. a dangerous middle of the order hitter type of player.  This is why I was so dubious about making your one big money long term contract Dansby, a solid player who adds value but doesn't make the offense much more dangerous.  

So many premium bats have been made available in recent years or are available...not all of them had a chance to end up as Cubs but many could have if acted upon aggressively enough.

Jed's rebuild should have been like the Phillies.  Correct me if I'm wrong but they developed a decent chunk of their roster, but not a ton of superstar talent.  They developed a solid core of players and then added guys like Harper, Turner and Wheeler to fill the gaps (combined WAR this year 6.2 and tht's with Turner missing a month)

The Cubs comparable signings were Seiya, Swanson and Imanaga (combined WAR this year 2.6 with Seiya missing 3 weeks and Swanson 2 weeks)

Edited June 2, 2024 by UMFan83

[chibears55]

7 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

I still dont think Jed is even anywhere close to the hot seat, but in case I'm wrong he might want to get some of those vaunted position player prospects up to Chicago by the end of the year to produce a bit and show that your plan isn't doomed for failure.

Problem there is that their best players in Iowa and Tennessee are all outfielders,  though Shaw has been doing better lately.

 

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

I think that there's enough of them that at least 2 of them are going to turn into above average major league players.  I'm just concerned that none of them will turn into premium MLB players.  PCA could but its going to be fielding/baserunning heavy vs. a dangerous middle of the order hitter type of player.  This is why I was so dubious about making your one big money long term contract Dansby, a solid player who adds value but doesn't make the offense much more dangerous.  

So many premium bats have been made available in recent years or are available...not all of them had a chance to end up as Cubs but many could have if acted upon aggressively enough.

Jed's rebuild should have been like the Phillies.  Correct me if I'm wrong but they developed a decent chunk of their roster, but not a ton of superstar talent.  They developed a solid core of players and then added guys like Harper, Turner and Wheeler to fill the gaps (combined WAR this year 6.2 and tht's with Turner missing a month)

The Cubs comparable signings were Seiya, Swanson and Imanaga (combined WAR this year 2.6 with Seiya missing 3 weeks and Swanson 2 weeks)

Who’s gonna sit when Owen comes up? 

[CubinNY]

30 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

$93 million cumulative AAV split between Swanson, Happ, Cody and Suzuki. A career 162 game 12 combined WAR/season, essentially 4 wins above average. For $30 million/year you can have Mookie Betts for around a 6 WAR. 
 

Terrible roster construction and value from a $230 million payroll.

Agree. Giving Dansby that contract was not good. 

[WhyCantWeWin]

48 minutes ago, Andy said:

Bellinger first and foremost. Maybe Tauchman. Neris if you can find someone dumb enough (like the Cubs) to ignore his peripherals.

I'm not sure who else doesn't fall under one or more of 1) too young for it to make sense to give up on, 2) too old or signed for too long to make sense to trade, or 3) sucks too bad to have any value. There might be a reliever in there somewhere that I'm missing.

I think Bellingers player options are going to drop his value quite a bit

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

$93 million cumulative AAV split between Swanson, Happ, Cody and Suzuki. A career 162 game 12 combined WAR/season, essentially 4 wins above average. For $30 million/year you can have Mookie Betts for around a 6 WAR. 
 

jeds spending habits and roster construction is puzzling.

And for half of that and a legit player development staff you could lead the NLC by 7 games 

[We Got The Whole 9]

The fact that we think we need to sign names every time is a huge problem. The development at the MLB level is just bad. There are several teams spending very little to much better results.

[Soul]

2 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

I still dont think Jed is even anywhere close to the hot seat, but in case I'm wrong he might want to get some of those vaunted position player prospects up to Chicago by the end of the year to produce a bit and show that your plan isn't doomed for failure.

I don’t understand why he wouldn’t be feeling some heat.  His contract is through 2025 - so coming up. Since being named president he’s never had a playoff team.  With the angel on his shoulder gone his lack of competence is exposed for all to see.  If his current squad doesn’t start performing I’d say he needs to do exactly what you said.

[731.4life]

1 hour ago, Soul said:

I don’t understand why he wouldn’t be feeling some heat.  His contract is through 2025 - so coming up. Since being named president he’s never had a playoff team.  With the angel on his shoulder gone his lack of competence is exposed for all to see.  If his current squad doesn’t start performing I’d say he needs to do exactly what you said.

Do you see Jed moving on from Suzuki and Morel because those players are blocking prospects? 

Can't move Happ due to a no-trade clause, and Morel is the worst defensive 3rd baseman in baseball and batting below .200 and below .700 OPS.

 

[WhyCantWeWin]

50 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Do you see Jed moving on from Suzuki and Morel because those players are blocking prospects? 

Can't move Happ due to a no-trade clause, and Morel is the worst defensive 3rd baseman in baseball and batting below .200 and below .700 OPS.

 

Suzuki has a no trade clause too and he seems extremely unlikely to waive. 

[NorthsideAvenger]

Last couple of weeks the Cubs have dropped series to every other NL Central team. So, props to the Cubs for being generous, I guess. 

[thawv]

20 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

$230 million well spent.

It's no wonder Tom doesn't let Jed spend more that 237 million.  I know that I wouldn't.

Edited June 3, 2024 by thawv

[UMFan83]

2 hours ago, Soul said:

I don’t understand why he wouldn’t be feeling some heat.  His contract is through 2025 - so coming up. Since being named president he’s never had a playoff team.  With the angel on his shoulder gone his lack of competence is exposed for all to see.  If his current squad doesn’t start performing I’d say he needs to do exactly what you said.

Valid point about the contract, I always forget about that.  I think if the Cubs finish around .500 and the farm system is still considered top 3-5 in baseball he'll be safe from heat.  I'm not trying by cynical and suggest that Tom doesn't care about winning at all.  He does, but I think whats most important to him from a baseball perspective is building a team that can develop players regularly to keep them from having to go into the luxury tax very often. (I mean to be realistic thats what almost every owner wants).  Jed can still sell Tom on that vision even if the Cubs only win 78 games this year.  

- .500ish team baseline (in this hypothetical)

- Top 5 farm system with many top guys in the upper minors

- Under the luxury tax, so no concerns about paying repeater penalties in short term

- Completely swagging it but something like $66m coming off the books from Hendricks, Bellinger, Smyly, Gomes, Bote, Neris and not a ton of arbitration raises I don't think (Steele is probably the only one that will be a significant raise)

There are absolutely concerns and if I'm right and he's not on the hot seat, negotiations on an extension will be interesting.  But I would guess Tom is pleased with the health of the organization overall, he's making money, he can sell the fans (and himself) on the dream of a sustainable winner.  Unless has an in house option he really likes, Tom doesn't seem like the kind of guy that is going to overhaul the organization when its doing a good job developing pitching and seemingly doing a decent job of developing hitting.  Ripping it apart with a new regime before really seeing if many of the guys the current FO has spent the last 4ish years trying to develop could be seen as too rash for Tom.

I could be way off though.  And of course I'm saying this from Tom's perspective, not my own.  I have my own thoughts about the direction things are going but I have no say in it.

[731.4life]

1 hour ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

Suzuki has a no trade clause too and he seems extremely unlikely to waive. 

Okay! I wasn't aware of that. It seems the Cubs are in a mess in the outfield corner position now. Defiantly will be in 2025.

[Stratos]

On 6/2/2024 at 5:16 PM, Geographyhater8888 said:

$93 million cumulative AAV split between Swanson, Happ, Cody and Suzuki. A career 162 game 12 combined WAR/season, essentially 4 wins above average. For $30 million/year you can have Mookie Betts for around a 6 WAR. 
 

Terrible roster construction and value from a $230 million payroll.

But Mookie Betts is signed to a contract until the year 2032, until about age 40 for him.  The Dodgers aren't paying 30m for 6 WAR, it's a lot higher than that.

Happ, Cody, Suzuki we have signed through their prime years, and Swanson for maybe 3-4 seasons outside his prime years.  Nobody should be judging those contracts or those player decisions based on April and May of one season.  How many of us wouldn't have taken those 4 players before the season started?

[Geographyhater8888]

4 hours ago, Stratos said:

But Mookie Betts is signed to a contract until the year 2032, until about age 40 for him.  The Dodgers aren't paying 30m for 6 WAR, it's a lot higher than that.

Happ, Cody, Suzuki we have signed through their prime years, and Swanson for maybe 3-4 seasons outside his prime years.  Nobody should be judging those contracts or those player decisions based on April and May of one season.  How many of us wouldn't have taken those 4 players before the season started?

Seiya is making $17 million/year off his production in Japan, Happ and Dansby making another $46 off of a 4.2 and 5.5 WAR with a previous track record of of slightly above average production over the course of their first 5+ seasons in the league and because we’re in a situation with no big time bat in this lineup you end up giving Cody $80 million with the hopes last season wasn’t a fluke after falling off a cliff after 2029. 
 

Best case scenario is he’s productive enough to opt out. The point is building your roster and investing payroll around players to add an extra win or 2 best case scenario is an inefficient way to contend for a championship. You’re paying them off 1 season hoping it becomes a new trend.
 

would you trade Swanson and Happ/Suzuki for Seager? Less AAV and more wins. 
 

what Is Jed’s strategy here?

[Jason Ross]

56 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Seiya is making $17 million/year off his production in Japan, Happ and Dansby making another $46 off of a 4.2 and 5.5 WAR with a previous track record of of slightly above average production over the course of their first 5+ seasons in the league and because we’re in a situation with no big time bat in this lineup you end up giving Cody $80 million with the hopes last season wasn’t a fluke after falling off a cliff after 2029. 
 

Best case scenario is he’s productive enough to opt out. The point is building your roster and investing payroll around players to add an extra win or 2 best case scenario is an inefficient way to contend for a championship. You’re paying them off 1 season hoping it becomes a new trend.
 

would you trade Swanson and Happ/Suzuki for Seager? Less AAV and more wins. 
 

what Is Jed’s strategy here?

I think we have to take a bigger picture step back. And I'm going to say that with some context: I didn't like the Dansby Swanson contract when it was signed. This will play a role later, but I think it's important up front. 

I think Jed's strategy here is to remain flexible while the MiLB system produces talent. The Cubs system is generally split with the upper levels right now being pretty flushed (especially entering the year) and the lower levels being exciting but..."foggy". And while the Cubs talent is generally in the upper end of the system, many players are really ticketed for 2025 moreso than 2024 (Caissie, Shaw, Alcantara, Triantos, Ballesteros...). So what the Cubs have done over the last two years is go with targeted, shorter term deals of, almost exclusively, four year (or less) contracts (or contracts that include opt outs) so that the team can let the MiLB system cook, and can then replace longer term with players around them, with Dansby Swanson and his defense (as well as his ability to slide to a 2b position) as the one "long term commit".

I think for many ways, the plan has legs. I know right now Swanson kind of hasn't been great in 2024, but by September 2023, many were claiming the Cubs absolutely nailed the Swanson signing and had avoided many of the other shortstop contracts, like Correa, Turner and Bogaerts. I doubt that if the seasons were switched, and had Swanson had a bad 2023 to go with a really strong 2024 start we'd be praising it as a huge win, so I think we should probably avoid calling it a huge loss. And remember, this is from someone who didn't love the Swanson contract, for, mostly these reasons, I had concerns about defense falling off around 30 and his inconsistent bat. But the Cubs remain a flexible team. Sure, they'll probably lose Bellinger after a year, but they have done so with Pete Crow-Armstrong (a top-25 prospect) waiting in the wings. Replacing Bellinger's offense can be done various ways, which also includes someone like Owen Caissie who is banging on all cylinders in Iowa right now posting a 137 wRC+ and a >25 K% since May 1st. The Cubs will also have plenty of prospects to make a trade with, and with the rotation starting to bear out with young talent...the Cubs can make a move for a position of need and can likely put together a package any team would have a hard time turning down. 

I'm not sure I have always agreed with Jed Hoyer. I think the Cubs will need to have an aggressive mindset in some ways moving forward. They're going to have to acquire an elite talent sometime, likely, a bat. I think the Cubs will probably begin to spend money more efficiently as the prospects come up; the Cubs have been in a situation the last few years where they haven't had the super-cheap young talent to fill out the roster. They can probably stop paying the Drew Smyly's, the Trey Mancini's, the Jameson Taillons. a bit to fill out the roster, instead, and turn these positions over more to rookies. They can also probably stop doing the high-AAV thing to guys like Bellinger. As well, in 2026, the Cubs have a ton of money coming off the books; Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, to name a few. It should allow the payroll to remain around the $230+m range, but with extra talent on the roster as they can supplement a few higher salaries with cheaper young players, versus now, where they have a bunch of these $15-$20m spreading out the money. 

I think that's the strategy. Feel free to agree or disagree with it, but I think that's the general picture of what the Cubs are doing. They've talked about "threading the needle" and that's what this feels like...an attempt to thread it. 

[Rcal10]

On 6/2/2024 at 8:32 PM, 731.4life said:

Okay! I wasn't aware of that. It seems the Cubs are in a mess in the outfield corner position now. Defiantly will be in 2025.

This is an interesting take after 50 games this year. Especially when Suzuki missed 20 games and Happ is historically a streaky hitter. I believe the Cubs corners were top 5 in baseball last year. At the very worse, top 10. But now, suddenly they are a mess? I strongly disagree. They may not be top 5, but they might be. And again, they are far from a mess. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Today's game thread is @Rex Buckingham. If there is no thread up by 10:30 or so, jump ball.

[Geographyhater8888]

On 6/4/2024 at 5:56 AM, 1908_Cubs said:

I think we have to take a bigger picture step back. And I'm going to say that with some context: I didn't like the Dansby Swanson contract when it was signed. This will play a role later, but I think it's important up front. 

I think Jed's strategy here is to remain flexible while the MiLB system produces talent. The Cubs system is generally split with the upper levels right now being pretty flushed (especially entering the year) and the lower levels being exciting but..."foggy". And while the Cubs talent is generally in the upper end of the system, many players are really ticketed for 2025 moreso than 2024 (Caissie, Shaw, Alcantara, Triantos, Ballesteros...). So what the Cubs have done over the last two years is go with targeted, shorter term deals of, almost exclusively, four year (or less) contracts (or contracts that include opt outs) so that the team can let the MiLB system cook, and can then replace longer term with players around them, with Dansby Swanson and his defense (as well as his ability to slide to a 2b position) as the one "long term commit".

I think for many ways, the plan has legs. I know right now Swanson kind of hasn't been great in 2024, but by September 2023, many were claiming the Cubs absolutely nailed the Swanson signing and had avoided many of the other shortstop contracts, like Correa, Turner and Bogaerts. I doubt that if the seasons were switched, and had Swanson had a bad 2023 to go with a really strong 2024 start we'd be praising it as a huge win, so I think we should probably avoid calling it a huge loss. And remember, this is from someone who didn't love the Swanson contract, for, mostly these reasons, I had concerns about defense falling off around 30 and his inconsistent bat. But the Cubs remain a flexible team. Sure, they'll probably lose Bellinger after a year, but they have done so with Pete Crow-Armstrong (a top-25 prospect) waiting in the wings. Replacing Bellinger's offense can be done various ways, which also includes someone like Owen Caissie who is banging on all cylinders in Iowa right now posting a 137 wRC+ and a >25 K% since May 1st. The Cubs will also have plenty of prospects to make a trade with, and with the rotation starting to bear out with young talent...the Cubs can make a move for a position of need and can likely put together a package any team would have a hard time turning down. 

I'm not sure I have always agreed with Jed Hoyer. I think the Cubs will need to have an aggressive mindset in some ways moving forward. They're going to have to acquire an elite talent sometime, likely, a bat. I think the Cubs will probably begin to spend money more efficiently as the prospects come up; the Cubs have been in a situation the last few years where they haven't had the super-cheap young talent to fill out the roster. They can probably stop paying the Drew Smyly's, the Trey Mancini's, the Jameson Taillons. a bit to fill out the roster, instead, and turn these positions over more to rookies. They can also probably stop doing the high-AAV thing to guys like Bellinger. As well, in 2026, the Cubs have a ton of money coming off the books; Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, to name a few. It should allow the payroll to remain around the $230+m range, but with extra talent on the roster as they can supplement a few higher salaries with cheaper young players, versus now, where they have a bunch of these $15-$20m spreading out the money. 

I think that's the strategy. Feel free to agree or disagree with it, but I think that's the general picture of what the Cubs are doing. They've talked about "threading the needle" and that's what this feels like...an attempt to thread it. 

 

On 6/4/2024 at 5:56 AM, 1908_Cubs said:

I think we have to take a bigger picture step back. And I'm going to say that with some context: I didn't like the Dansby Swanson contract when it was signed. This will play a role later, but I think it's important up front. 

I think Jed's strategy here is to remain flexible while the MiLB system produces talent. The Cubs system is generally split with the upper levels right now being pretty flushed (especially entering the year) and the lower levels being exciting but..."foggy". And while the Cubs talent is generally in the upper end of the system, many players are really ticketed for 2025 moreso than 2024 (Caissie, Shaw, Alcantara, Triantos, Ballesteros...). So what the Cubs have done over the last two years is go with targeted, shorter term deals of, almost exclusively, four year (or less) contracts (or contracts that include opt outs) so that the team can let the MiLB system cook, and can then replace longer term with players around them, with Dansby Swanson and his defense (as well as his ability to slide to a 2b position) as the one "long term commit".

I think for many ways, the plan has legs. I know right now Swanson kind of hasn't been great in 2024, but by September 2023, many were claiming the Cubs absolutely nailed the Swanson signing and had avoided many of the other shortstop contracts, like Correa, Turner and Bogaerts. I doubt that if the seasons were switched, and had Swanson had a bad 2023 to go with a really strong 2024 start we'd be praising it as a huge win, so I think we should probably avoid calling it a huge loss. And remember, this is from someone who didn't love the Swanson contract, for, mostly these reasons, I had concerns about defense falling off around 30 and his inconsistent bat. But the Cubs remain a flexible team. Sure, they'll probably lose Bellinger after a year, but they have done so with Pete Crow-Armstrong (a top-25 prospect) waiting in the wings. Replacing Bellinger's offense can be done various ways, which also includes someone like Owen Caissie who is banging on all cylinders in Iowa right now posting a 137 wRC+ and a >25 K% since May 1st. The Cubs will also have plenty of prospects to make a trade with, and with the rotation starting to bear out with young talent...the Cubs can make a move for a position of need and can likely put together a package any team would have a hard time turning down. 

I'm not sure I have always agreed with Jed Hoyer. I think the Cubs will need to have an aggressive mindset in some ways moving forward. They're going to have to acquire an elite talent sometime, likely, a bat. I think the Cubs will probably begin to spend money more efficiently as the prospects come up; the Cubs have been in a situation the last few years where they haven't had the super-cheap young talent to fill out the roster. They can probably stop paying the Drew Smyly's, the Trey Mancini's, the Jameson Taillons. a bit to fill out the roster, instead, and turn these positions over more to rookies. They can also probably stop doing the high-AAV thing to guys like Bellinger. As well, in 2026, the Cubs have a ton of money coming off the books; Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, to name a few. It should allow the payroll to remain around the $230+m range, but with extra talent on the roster as they can supplement a few higher salaries with cheaper young players, versus now, where they have a bunch of these $15-$20m spreading out the money. 

I think that's the strategy. Feel free to agree or disagree with it, but I think that's the general picture of what the Cubs are doing. They've talked about "threading the needle" and that's what this feels like...an attempt to thread it. 

What you described is the best case scenario long term plan. I agree that these medium length contracts seem like a stop gap approach to skate the lines of contention. Only difference between Jed and Theos approach was Theo was all or nothing. Either tank or contend. 
 

does Jed have the willingness to scurried a Soto caliber bat for $599 million in the future. 
 

Everything else is what I’ve suspected. It’s just a roster building strategy no team besides the mid 2000’s Sox have really deployed. 

[Jason Ross]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

 

What you described is the best case scenario long term plan. I agree that these medium length contracts seem like a stop gap approach to skate the lines of contention. Only difference between Jed and Theos approach was Theo was all or nothing. Either tank or contend. 
 

does Jed have the willingness to scurried a Soto caliber bat for $599 million in the future. 
 

Everything else is what I’ve suspected. It’s just a roster building strategy no team besides the mid 2000’s Sox have really deployed. 

It does feel like it's more of a "right now" plan. I'm simply guessing here, but I think Jed Hoyer looks up to someone like Andrew Friedman. I know the Dodgers have blown the doors off monetarily the last couple of years, but before the Freeman contact, much of how the Dodgers operated relied around:

1. Prospects, prospects and prospects - being smart at drafting and developing, especially arms. 
2. Filling out an MLB roster that forced those prospects to take a job not just be given one.
3. Finally, adding the big, big piece in Mookie via trade

They did FA shopping, and he was gifted some guys like Kershaw, but Friedman with the Dodgers didn't blow the doors off with aggressive adds via trade or free agency right away. They used the money they had to buy players but never really the 6+ year type or the huge trade. Go back and look at like, the 2016 Dodgers or something. They had good players but it was built on Pederson (prospect), Turner (reclamation), Seager (prospect), Adrian Gonzalez (trade - ate the contract), Utley (older), Kerhsaw (former-prospect), Puig (prospect), Maeda (mid-level FA), Urias (prospect)...

This feels like the path Hoyer would like to take. The Cubs are a little behind where the Dodgers were in 2016, I think. Maybe a year off or so, with the prospects. But I'd assume this is the strategy when you take a broad spectrum look at how the Cubs have operated. They've drafted. They've gone after mid-level FA's. They even kind of handle the MilB and prospects in a similar way. It's hard to replicate the best; I think it's almost inarguable that Andrew Friedman is the best at what he does right now. We'll see if Hoyer has the ability to make his own Mookie Betts deal sometime. That was the real "take off" of the Dodgers from "really good team" to "powerhouse", IMO.