Cubs Telling Potential Trade Partners They're Undecided On Selling At Deadline

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Umpires association aren't going to give up that much control. MLB has to go to them and see what they want. Manfred and his team can't just say "screw the umpires" over the offseason.

Robotic system isn't coming to the MLB, at least anytime soon. Accept that.

The umpires have no say in the rules that baseball decides on. They interpret the rules. They take their orders from MLB. So, the decision will be made by the owners and the players. 

[thawv]

17 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Don't think the umpires are going to agree to do that. They have their own union as well. I watched a AAA game last week in person with the challenge system. First time going to a minor league game with a challenge system, and I enjoyed it. Should only take around 5-7 seconds max. 

Don't see umpires wanting to "suit up" and sit behind home plate for 2.5 hours with an object coming at them 95+ MPH with movement, and not being able to do what they enjoy doing, which is calling balls and strikes. I do believe they're willing to move to the challenge system.

When it comes to the players, I don't think hitters will appreciate the catcher setting up inside, reaching out over the outter edge of the plate, and be rewarded with a strike out based on "computers" despite clearly missing his spot.

Organizations will still have to instruct proper framing when it comes to the catchers. You move to the robotic system, that's all gone. With the challenge system, that art is still there.

The umpire's union should be pushing hard for this!!  Nothing negative for them.  They will still physically be announcing the call.  They just have the decision making power taken from them.  This will make their job easier, and less humiliating.  This is a great thing for the umps!

[731.4life]

Just now, CubinNY said:

The umpires have no say in the rules that baseball decides on. They interpret the rules. They take their orders from MLB. So, the decision will be made by the owners and the players. 

Bud, this is not a new "rule" that we're talking about. This has nothing to do with rules.

[CubinNY]

11 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Bud, this is not a new "rule" that we're talking about. This has nothing to do with rules.

lol. If MLB and the players agree to LIDAR based strike zone there is not one thing the umpires can do about it. It's a rule change. We are no longer going to call balls and strikes this way, we are going to call them that way. 

The umpires can't say we don't like the pitch clock. They can't say we don't like video reviews. It was told to them how the system would work. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4410592/2023/04/14/mlb-umpire-rule-changes-opinion/

Edited July 9, 2024 by CubinNY

[731.4life]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

lol. If MLB and the players agree to LIDAR based strike zone there is not one thing the umpires can do about it. It's a rule change. We are no longer going to call balls and strikes this way, we are going to call them that way. 

The umpires can't say we don't like the pitch clock. They can't say we don't like video reviews. It was told to them how the system would work. 

I don't think you understand.

Umpires are willing to give up some control of their calls to help the game. I'm sure they're okay with each team challenging a play throughout the duration of the game. If a team missed a challenge, then sorry, they obviously can't challenge the next call.

I'm sure they're okay with the challenge system for balls and strikes. 3 challenges of 125+ pitches for each team, I'm sure the umpires are on board with that. But if a team carelessly uses all of their challenges, then sorry, we're back to playing normal baseball. They're not willing to go to the robotic system, and I'm not even sure players are 100% wanting to go to that as well. 

News flash: we can still play baseball without the pitch coms and the pitch clock, they did that in Washington earlier this season.

They've been talking about this for 5+ years, and it still hasn't happen.... So I'll believe it when I see it.

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

I don't think you understand.

Umpires are willing to give up some control of their calls to help the game. I'm sure they're okay with each team challenging a play throughout the duration of the game. If a team missed a challenge, then sorry, they obviously can't challenge the next call.

I'm sure they're okay with the challenge system for balls and strikes. 3 challenges of 125+ pitches for each team, I'm sure the umpires are on board with that. But if a team carelessly uses all of their challenges, then sorry, we're back to playing normal baseball. They're not willing to go to the robotic system, and I'm not even sure players are 100% wanting to go to that as well. 

News flash: we can still play baseball without the pitch coms and the pitch clock, they did that in Washington earlier this season.

They've been talking about this for 5+ years, and it still hasn't happen.... So I'll believe it when I see it.

THE UMPIRES HAVE NO SAY IN THE WAY MLB CHOOSE TO PLAY BASEBALL.

[Backtobanks]

The difference is that hitting coaches are now emphasizing launch angles and power, rather than hitting for average.  Strike outs and home runs dominate baseball instead of getting on base. 

[chibears55]

On 7/8/2024 at 5:43 PM, Rcal10 said:

I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying you want. I completely understand. But the Cubs aren’t spending $15M for a “bench guy” guy like Zobrist. No team is doing that. Be happy they have Tauchman. In a world of baseball today, he is a solid bench player. They also are not spending on a closer. It has been proven year in and year out that they won’t do that. Maybe the best you will see is a Jansen trade with the Red Sox to have him for one year. And I doubt they do that. That is why I am focusing on catcher and 3rd base mainly. And if Bellinger is gone, (and I hope he is) DH. Add a reliable veteran pen arm and IF they do want to package some young talent with one of those young talents being Brown, Assad or Wicks, sure they can try for a solid TOR starter. 

Not saying they need to spend  big money on a bench guy or even a closer.

You can find guys like this that aren't going to cost a ton of money.

[CubinNY]

NM

Edited July 9, 2024 by CubinNY

[Stratos]

10 hours ago, Derwood said:

The 1998 Yankees had a TEAM OPS of .825

2024 Cubs have one player above .800 and a team OPS of .678

10 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Hey, all we need is Mariano Riveria and one of the best three year teams in the last 50 years. Get to work, Jed. 

I'm not saying the Cubs are the 98 Yankees.  But 98 Yanks didn't have a single 30 HR hitter on that team or a traditional middle of the order star slugger even in that HR era.  They had a lineup filled with good productive hitters and few if any black holes, sort of in the vein of the Cubs in the 2nd half of last year.

Yanks did have guys who had high averages which helped raise the slug and OBP.  Not going to have a team of guys hitting for that high average any more.

Having a league average 3b and catcher would nab us another 3-4 wins alone at this point in the season, and 6-7 wins over a full season, that's how bad catching and 3b has been, catching is on pace for -3 WAR, and an effective pen would add more wins.  Maybe enough for a playoff birth.  Prospects like Caissie, PCA, Shaw, Horton etc reaching the MLB full-time would add surplus and free up cash for us to upgrade at other positions,, including someone like Soto.   Trading one of Happ/Suzuki, Taillon, maybe Nico in a year or will nab more prospects to the system.

 

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, chibears55 said:

Not saying they need to spend  big money on a bench guy or even a closer.

You can find guys like this that aren't going to cost a ton of money.

So what you are saying is spend little and get lucky the guy produces. Sure, great idea. Now they just need to get lucky. They have done that for years.That got them Lieter, Merryweather and Tauchman. Again, what you want is basically what I would like to see too. But for it to happen they have to get lucky. No team has a great bench unless an unexpected guy has a good year. As an example, Mastrobuoni gets ripped here constantly. But in reality he is no different than Short or Clemens, guys the Braves and Phillies use. Clemens is just happening to have a good year, but if people were being honest, no one would have said going into the year that Clemens is a great utility guy. 

[jersey cubs fan]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

I'm not saying the Cubs are the 98 Yankees.  But 98 Yanks didn't have a single 30 HR hitter on that team or a traditional middle of the order star slugger even in that HR era.  They had a lineup filled with good productive hitters and few if any black holes, sort of in the vein of the Cubs in the 2nd half of last year.

 

 

[Tim]

52 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Interesting comment from Jaffe on Hoerner…Makes sense, not getting a big return, since this would just be desperately dumping contracts to clear up cap space. Comment also bodes well towards trading *for* Luis Robert, the actual thing to do pls 

Has Jaffe not heard of Triantos or Shaw?

[squally1313]

Hoerner has been the 6th best second baseman in baseball since the beginning of last year and would be owed $28m for 2.5 years if we traded him today. How would that not bring a substantial return? 

[Tryptamine]

53 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Hoerner has been the 6th best second baseman in baseball since the beginning of last year and would be owed $28m for 2.5 years if we traded him today. How would that not bring a substantial return? 

Because defense and baserunning don't count in some people's minds so all they see is a league average bat with minimal power. 

[Rcal10]

47 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Hoerner has been the 6th best second baseman in baseball since the beginning of last year and would be owed $28m for 2.5 years if we traded him today. How would that not bring a substantial return? 

Because the guy answering the question doesn’t know what he is talking about. Beside suggesting they wouldn’t get much back he was also wrong on the Cubs prospects. My 7 yr old grandson could have answered that question better. 

[Tryptamine]

10 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Because the guy answering the question doesn’t know what he is talking about. Beside suggesting they wouldn’t get much back he was also wrong on the Cubs prospects. My 7 yr old grandson could have answered that question better. 

It really was bad for someone who makes a living doing this. Like ok, I can get not listing Triantos because the defense is probably going to take a miracle for that to happen, but Shaw shouldn't be questionable at all and he's slightly better than a "35". Also, apparently Jefferson Rojas doesn't exist in his universe. so a 55 and 50, but yeah, no one above 35. 

[Stratos]

If the Cubs want to compete next year you keep Nico. He can always be traded next deadline or 2025/26 offseason if Shaw/Triantos show they can hit in the MLB.  We also still need a 3b, which they would provide. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

46 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I’ll throw out a crazy thought: none of Triantos, Shaw, or Rojas are serious first division 2B prospects rn. It grinds me gears the one position Shaw is dismissed at is SS, a position he has most experience, was drafted at, and hasn’t actually played himself off of. I know it falls on deaf ears when I mention it but McDaniels and Longenhagen diiiiiid put 2B above SS on their revised D spectrum. The modern first division 2B is more like Hoerner, Stott, Gimenez, Kim in that they’re SS capable, probably the best defender on their respective teams, and also hit a little 

 

He's dismissed at SS for 175 million reasons

[Tryptamine]

So I've seen it mentioned numerous time that the type of returns the Marlins want for guys that are available is prospects at least a few years away from the majors. That makes me think we set up pretty well to do some buying without having to touch any of the guys who we expect to contribute in 2025/2026. I'd love to go and grab Braxton Garrett or even Edward Cabrera. I'd also have significant interest in Andrew Nardi. 

[LBiittner]

11 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

He's dismissed at SS for 175 million reasons

Playing the devils advocate here; during his cub career and the cub $ spent on him to date which is $26 mil per, does $ spent and the war level for a year and a half balance out?

Don't know how you math gurus do this, all sort of new to me 

[Cuzi]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

If the Cubs want to compete next year you keep Nico. He can always be traded next deadline or 2025/26 offseason if Shaw/Triantos show they can hit in the MLB.  We also still need a 3b, which they would provide. 

Are you under the assumption the Cubs would trade Nico for something that doesn't help the team compete next year?

[Rob]

5 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

Playing the devils advocate here; during his cub career and the cub $ spent on him to date which is $26 mil per, does $ spent and the war level for a year and a half balance out?

Don't know how you math gurus do this, all sort of new to me 

Swanson has put up 5.9 fWAR as a Cub.

How to value each fWAR is always in a bit of flux -- subject to the whims of the market, inflation, etc... But $8M per is still a pretty conservative estimate.

So Swanson has been worth something like $47M so far. If he's paid out at $52M by the end of the year, he's roughly "on pace" to provide the value we are supposed to get.

However, given the aging curve, the reality is that "on pace" is behind -- you expect to get more from people early in the contract and little later on. He was on track with that last year, putting up north of 4.5 fWAR and roughly $35M in value.

TL;DR: Swanson was worth way more than his contract last season. He's likely to rack up enough value the rest of this season as to say he hasn't truly disappointed the contract yet. But if he doesn't bounce back to previously established levels next year, the odds of him living up to the contract are low.

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I couldn’t say but boy would there be egg on his face. I struggle to imagine an organizational position or hole Shaw can’t fill 

I like Shaw a lot, but before we put him in any position, we need to find out whether he can hit ML pitching.  That's true about all of our top prospects which is why I think we need to start trading some of them before they lose their trade value.  I'm all for overpaying for players like Robert and/or Vlad Jr.

[LBiittner]

5 minutes ago, Rob said:

Swanson has put up 5.9 fWAR as a Cub.

How to value each fWAR is always in a bit of flux -- subject to the whims of the market, inflation, etc... But $8M per is still a pretty conservative estimate.

So Swanson has been worth something like $47M so far. If he's paid out at $52M by the end of the year, he's roughly "on pace" to provide the value we are supposed to get.

However, given the aging curve, the reality is that "on pace" is behind -- you expect to get more from people early in the contract and little later on. He was on track with that last year, putting up north of 4.5 fWAR and roughly $35M in value.

TL;DR: Swanson was worth way more than his contract last season. He's likely to rack up enough value the rest of this season as to say he hasn't truly disappointed the contract yet. But if he doesn't bounce back to previously established levels next year, the odds of him living up to the contract are low.

Thank you for the detailed explanation Rob.