General Offseason Priorities

[squally1313]

23 minutes ago, thawv said:

To pay 30% penalty next season just doesn't seem like a Cubs thing to do.

“30% penalty’ doesn’t mean anything in terms of actual financial disincentive. It’s like moving into the next marginal tax rate. The question is always 30% of what, and all indications are the cubs plan will be to stick around that line and therefore it will at worst be some percentage of some low number. 

[Bertz]

On 9/17/2024 at 10:42 AM, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'm honestly not sure it's the offense. Is a "big bat" really required? If you look across the league, there are several teams putting up big offensive numbers without the usual suspects carrying them. Sometimes those big offensive seasons come from unexpected sources. Any team can get lucky and stumble onto them at times. 

 

AZ has Marte but their best hitter has been Joc inexplicably putting up a 153

Jurickson Profar paces the Padres with a 144

O'Neill leads with a 140

 

I think you can absolutely be a top offensive team if you have a lineup of 110-130 guys. Just for whatever reason like clockwork our hitters tend to slump in clumps and it goes on for way too long. The pen early-on and our 2 month offensive slump knocked this team out of playoff contention. But I don't believe that if just 1 of those hitters maintained a 150+ bat throughout that time that it would have made a significant difference.

Yeah it doesn't matter.  There's some real incentive to add power to the lineup.  More dongs = more crooked numbers = fewer close games = better rested pitching staff.  But there's no magic thing about the offense that suddenly unlocks when you add a wRC+ north of 150.  It's just aesthetics.

[thawv]

11 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

“30% penalty’ doesn’t mean anything in terms of actual financial disincentive. It’s like moving into the next marginal tax rate. The question is always 30% of what, and all indications are the cubs plan will be to stick around that line and therefore it will at worst be some percentage of some low number. 

I don't disagree at all.  I'm saying that it's not something that the Cubs make a practice of doing, and I don't think that they will.

 

[Rcal10]

If Bellinger comes back does he have trade value? I mean does a team like Seattle, who has a lot of pitching but needs offense, consider him. They seem to have a lot of great young arms. I know they can’t be touched with Bellinger. But what about Castillo. He is 31 and making $23M or so a year for the next 3 years. He had a good year and has been solid, but not “ace” like. What would the Cubs have to add for something like this to happen? 

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, thawv said:

I don't disagree at all.  I'm saying that it's not something that the Cubs make a practice of doing, and I don't think that they will.

 

But why would they care if the penalty is some rounding error? They obviously didn’t this year. Like the only actual piece of evidence we have is them seemingly going slightly over, and Jed candidly talking about it in a way that expresses very little concern about it. 

[thawv]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

But why would they care if the penalty is some rounding error? They obviously didn’t this year. Like the only actual piece of evidence we have is them seemingly going slightly over, and Jed candidly talking about it in a way that expresses very little concern about it. 

It's not an accident that Jed made sure that the fans knew that they were going over the cap.  Nobody makes that announcement!!  It was scripted so that the team could tell the fans, "see, we spend money."  He's not fooling anybody. 

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, thawv said:

It's not an accident that Jed made sure that the fans knew that they were going over the cap.  Nobody makes that announcement!!  It was scripted so that the team could tell the fans, "see, we spend money."  He's not fooling anybody. 

The Bleed Cubbie Blue article I'm reading says that they knew they were very likely going to be over back in February when they signed Bellinger. They then went on to add salary in the Paredes/Morel trade, which they very obviously didn't have to do. Crane Kenney is also quoted as saying 'the CBT is not a governor'. I mean, what specific piece of evidence (them being over, them knowing they were over before the year, them adding salary at the deadline) is pointing towards 'they won't go over in the future'. We can be frustrated conceptually that they likely won't approach a $300m payroll. But in line with the budget that many of us understand it to be ($250m or so), the penalties just don't mean anything and there's no evidence pointing to that being a hard line in the sand. 

[Jason Ross]

24 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

If Bellinger comes back does he have trade value? I mean does a team like Seattle, who has a lot of pitching but needs offense, consider him. They seem to have a lot of great young arms. I know they can’t be touched with Bellinger. But what about Castillo. He is 31 and making $23M or so a year for the next 3 years. He had a good year and has been solid, but not “ace” like. What would the Cubs have to add for something like this to happen? 

Probably not a lot of trade value unless the Cubs are eating contract. If Bellinger thought his market value was above his current contract, he would opt out and sign a new contract via FA. If he opts in, it's because he believes his current deal is below what the market would offer him (or right at market value). 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Probably not a lot of trade value unless the Cubs are eating contract. If Bellinger thought his market value was above his current contract, he would opt out and sign a new contract via FA. If he opts in, it's because he believes his current deal is below what the market would offer him (or right at market value). 

That is true. If Seattle did want him I guess he and his agent would know it and opt out. Very good point 1908. 
That said, I still think there is a good chance he opts out anyway, so the trade Bellinger or even trade any of the starters conversation becomes moot. He is actually having a decent year. If he can sell himself as a centerfielder he should be able to get 5/$100-$1110. That should have him opting out. 

Edited September 20, 2024 by Rcal10

[Cuzi]

23 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

That is true. If Seattle did want him I guess he and his agent would know it and opt out. Very good point 1908. 
That said, I still think there is a good chance he opts out anyway, so the trade Bellinger or even trade any of the starters conversation becomes moot. He is actually having a decent year. If he can sell himself as a centerfielder he should be able to get 5/$100-$1110. That should have him opting out. 

If Seattle wanted him, he for sure wouldnt be getting a better deal than he has because they have no need outside of replacing Justin Turner.

[thawv]

32 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

The Bleed Cubbie Blue article I'm reading says that they knew they were very likely going to be over back in February when they signed Bellinger. They then went on to add salary in the Paredes/Morel trade, which they very obviously didn't have to do. Crane Kenney is also quoted as saying 'the CBT is not a governor'. I mean, what specific piece of evidence (them being over, them knowing they were over before the year, them adding salary at the deadline) is pointing towards 'they won't go over in the future'. We can be frustrated conceptually that they likely won't approach a $300m payroll. But in line with the budget that many of us understand it to be ($250m or so), the penalties just don't mean anything and there's no evidence pointing to that being a hard line in the sand. 

Tom said that they like to operate below the first level.  That's code for, that's our budget.  The evidence is their past history with going over in consecutive seasons.  The CBT may not be a governor, but they certainly would prefer to stay under it, as Tom has said.  

[squally1313]

15 minutes ago, thawv said:

Tom said that they like to operate below the first level.  That's code for, that's our budget.  The evidence is their past history with going over in consecutive seasons.  The CBT may not be a governor, but they certainly would prefer to stay under it, as Tom has said.  

I don't think their internal budget number is drastically different than the CBT number. But I don't think, if they ran back the Bellinger situation again this February, they'd take an approach of like 'we can offer this much and not a penny more because of CBT'. If they're willing to offer a player $30m, they're probably going to be willing to go to $32 or $33 all in (with the tax) if that's what it takes. Ultimately, Tom's number and the CBT number are very much in the same ballpark and therefore the actual disincentives of the tax (minimal), in my opinion, are never really going to be a main driving factor. 

[Donzo]

AZ Phil had a nice post on his site that I agree with. He basically said, “put all the AVV (money) into one player”. No more dicing it up into a bunch of mediocre players. 

I agree. I want to see a fan trade- trading multiple assets for one upgraded player, then sign one high end asset. Ideally, if possible, I’d trade something like Hoerner, Paredes, Triantos and Alcantara for a bat/3B. Then, sign a top reliever- a real one. No more Almonte or Neris types.

Upgrade the top end talent.

[We Got The Whole 9]

10 minutes ago, Donzo said:

AZ Phil had a nice post on his site that I agree with. He basically said, “put all the AVV (money) into one player”. No more dicing it up into a bunch of mediocre players. 

I agree. I want to see a fan trade- trading multiple assets for one upgraded player, then sign one high end asset. Ideally, if possible, I’d trade something like Hoerner, Paredes, Triantos and Alcantara for a bat/3B. Then, sign a top reliever- a real one. No more Almonte or Neris types.

Upgrade the top end talent.

Trade for Vlad, Tucker, or Rooker, and sign Flaherty then.

Edited September 20, 2024 by We Got The Whole 9

[thawv]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Trade for Vlad, Tucker, or Rooker, and sign Flaherty then.

I agree.  PCA is the only untouchable player in the franchise, so have at it!  I'd be all in on Flaherty for a 3-4 year deal.  I'm not sure that Rooker can repeat this season as his BABIP is unsustainable I believe.  Yes to Tucker.

The big question is, where do these guys play if they don't trade rostered guys? 

Edited September 20, 2024 by thawv

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, thawv said:

I agree.  PCA is the only untouchable play in the franchise, so have at it!  I'd be all in on Flaherty for a 3-4 year deal.  I'm not sure that Rooker can repeat this season as his BABIP is unsustainable I believe.  Yes to Tucker.

The big question is, where do these guys play if they don't trade rostered guys? 

Cody becomes the 4th outfielder, essentially, in any of these scenarios.

• Vlad/Rooker: Vlad is full time DH, you live with Seiya in right (metrics aren't that bad), Cody backs up all three outfield positions, backs up Busch, and occasionally you let Busch play second and Bellinger first if you want a bunch of lefties
• Tucker: Tucker is full time RF, Seiya is DH, Cody does the same thing as above

[We Got The Whole 9]

I would see if Cody is open to a trade and put Seiya back in RF is he is. i'd be looking to trade him for a power arm leverage RP type or 2. I'd be willing to move Triantos to sweeten the pot. 

[thawv]

10 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Cody becomes the 4th outfielder, essentially, in any of these scenarios.

• Vlad/Rooker: Vlad is full time DH, you live with Seiya in right (metrics aren't that bad), Cody backs up all three outfield positions, backs up Busch, and occasionally you let Busch play second and Bellinger first if you want a bunch of lefties
• Tucker: Tucker is full time RF, Seiya is DH, Cody does the same thing as above

Now this is interesting.  So Cody loses a ton of playing time in this scenario? 

[Tim]

1 minute ago, thawv said:

Now this is interesting.  So Cody loses a ton of playing time in this scenario? 

It really just depends on how you do the rotations.

[squally1313]

9 minutes ago, thawv said:

Now this is interesting.  So Cody loses a ton of playing time in this scenario? 

In a hypothetical world where everyone has perfect health (which would be worst case scenario for Cody and his playing time), you could still give him 15 starts in left, 15 starts in center, 15 starts in right, 15 starts to give Busch a day off, 15 starts to give Nico a day off (Busch at second), 15 starts at DH. That's 90 starts, can make it 120 by bumping those all up to 20. Nico moving to short to give Dansby time off (and Busch to second, Bellinger to first) is another option. Of course, this is a world where guys like Caissie, Shaw, etc don't exist. But those guys become that much more tradable with a Bellinger opt in and a big offensive signing.  

[Rcal10]

20 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

In a hypothetical world where everyone has perfect health (which would be worst case scenario for Cody and his playing time), you could still give him 15 starts in left, 15 starts in center, 15 starts in right, 15 starts to give Busch a day off, 15 starts to give Nico a day off (Busch at second), 15 starts at DH. That's 90 starts, can make it 120 by bumping those all up to 20. Nico moving to short to give Dansby time off (and Busch to second, Bellinger to first) is another option. Of course, this is a world where guys like Caissie, Shaw, etc don't exist. But those guys become that much more tradable with a Bellinger opt in and a big offensive signing.  

Exactly what I was going to say. In a Perfect scenario everyone gets 20 games off. You can probably live with Busch at 3rd for 20 games if you really wanted too. To fill 8 Positions for 162 games that is 1296 games. 9 guys playing 142 games each is 1278 games. It can be done. And, of course, there will be injuries. Go get Tucker or Vlad and make it happen. I wouldn’t worry about playing time for the young talent. Some will be fine in trade anyway.

[squally1313]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

Exactly what I was going to say. In a Perfect scenario everyone gets 20 games off. You can probably live with Busch at 3rd for 20 games if you really wanted too. To fill 8 Positions for 162 games that is 1296 games. 9 guys playing 142 games each is 1278 games. It can be done. And, of course, there will be injuries. Go get Tucker or Vlad and make it happen. I wouldn’t worry about playing time for the young talent. Some will be fine in trade anyway.

Yeah the easier way to say it is that Bellinger is the default starter if any of Happ, PCA, new elite bat, Suzuki, or Busch went down with an injury. 

Having said that, if you told him that was his role going forward, he might rethink his option decision. But if he's going to be here, might as well lean on his versatility. 

[Rcal10]

42 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah the easier way to say it is that Bellinger is the default starter if any of Happ, PCA, new elite bat, Suzuki, or Busch went down with an injury. 

Having said that, if you told him that was his role going forward, he might rethink his option decision. But if he's going to be here, might as well lean on his versatility. 

Honestly, the Cubs should make their plans very well known to Bellinger. They should tell him they are going after a big bat and he might see less playing time. Maybe that will sway Bellinger’s decision.

[731.4life]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

I agree.  PCA is the only untouchable player in the franchise, so have at it!  I'd be all in on Flaherty for a 3-4 year deal.  I'm not sure that Rooker can repeat this season as his BABIP is unsustainable I believe.  Yes to Tucker.

The big question is, where do these guys play if they don't trade rostered guys? 

Flaherty is going to have probably the most important postseason for an upcoming free agent player. He faded last year in Baltimore and was a disappointment. He can't do that again this year, and if he does, it'll be tough to get a good 3-4 year contract on him.

[731.4life]

If Bellinger opts in, then how about trade him to Colorado? 

He'll hit in Colorado, the Rockies only have Doyle in center field, but will have Condon coming up in their system, so they need another outfielder. Blackmon will be 39 during the middle of next season. However, McMahon will be 30, Rodgers will be 29, Toglia will be 27, and Tovar will be 24.

I think Colorado can use another offensive bat and it fills a need at outfield/DH for the short term. If Bellinger performs well, then he can play himself out of Colorado by either trade or opt out.

The time for the Rockies to get going is now.