General Offseason Priorities

[chibears55]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

Or they can trade Cassie and/or Alcantara in a big deal to get an established major leaguer. I honestly don’t understand all the penciling in of prospects that so many people do. I would much rather use them as assets for proven talent. 

I said either or, and the or wasn't even the prospects, they were 3rd on the list..lol

Add a multi year bat or get a filler until they're ready

[Rcal10]

17 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

I said either or, and the or wasn't even the prospects, they were 3rd on the list..lol

Add a multi year bat or get a filler until they're ready

I just hope they aim higher than a bench left handed bat. With or without Bellinger I want a guy that could be in the line up for 135-140 games (if Bellinger stays, or everyday if he opts out) batting somewhere between 2nd and 6th. And I am fine with them trading whatever they need to do it. 

[Rex Buckingham]

If Soto wants an opt out, you give it to him. Heck, if Soto says he will sign, but we have to replace the ivy with cushioned walls and demands a stipulation in his contract that he gets to take a dump in Pat Hughes' personal bathroom in the 5th inning of every game, you give it to him. 

Pay the man whatever money he wants and watch him blast majestic dongs. 

(Of course I know he's not coming here, but it almost certainly will be about the money we offer and the fact that the Cubs havent been very good since like 2017, not opt outs)

[Stratos]

14 hours ago, Bertz said:

3 things that seemed more than just press-speak:

1. An implication Cody's going to opt out

2. Wrigley played extremely pitcher friendly this year, which needs to impact how you evaluate both the offense and the pitching from this past season

3. There was a line about making prospect trades, but not ones that are too focused on the short term.  I read that to mean more deals in the Busch/Paredes mold

With Bellinger I think Jed said the Cubs knew that if Cody played well he could opt out and said he played well this year so he could opt out but they don't know.  I think he likely does opt out.  Players usually go for the higher guaranteed money over the higher AAV, but not always.  We'll see I guess.  If Cody can get something like 5/110 he'll opt out, and I think he can get that.

[Stratos]

16 hours ago, thawv said:

I read a very good article that removing pre arb players, and arb players, the cost of a win in 6 million.  With Cody coming in at 2.2 fWAR, that's way more than 5-10 million dollars.  Not trying to be confrontational, but he's was bad this year for his pay.   He needed to be over 4.5 fWAR just to hit the break even point of his pay. 

To be fair Cody is making a higher AAV in exchange for fewer guaranteed years so we didn't have to sign him for 6 years or whatever with the risk that 2023 was a total fluke and he went back to being a 1 WAR player.

[Cuzi]

13 hours ago, Tim said:

I completely disagree. 

If 30 year old Soto has outperformed his contract to that date and wants to go beat the $450M remaining on his deal to play through his 30's...bye! Thanks for the awesome years of baseball!

You can disagree all you want. It simply doesn't make sense from a team stand point which is why these contracts dont come with opt outs.

A team is on the hook for the entire contract. There is no opt out for the organization. So if you are throwing that kind of money on the table then you are already accepting the possibility the last few years might suck. But you are doing that on the basis that this player is probably going to be one of the best damn players in the game for a lot of that deal and by the time the contract is coming to an end, the $40M+ he signed for 14 years ago is a smaller % of your payroll.

If I'm the person handing out $600M in guaranteed money, your not getting out of the deal. I'm taking all the risk. The player isn't leaving money on the table where an opt out is even a negotiation.

[Rcal10]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

With Bellinger I think Jed said the Cubs knew that if Cody played well he could opt out and said he played well this year so he could opt out but they don't know.  I think he likely does opt out.  Players usually go for the higher guaranteed money over the higher AAV, but not always.  We'll see I guess.  If Cody can get something like 5/110 he'll opt out, and I think he can get that.

I honestly don’t think he will need even that much. I think he opts out if he can get a 5 year deal at $100M. Maybe even something like 6/$116. If he opts out he get $2.5M. So if you add that to the next contract he would be close to or just over a $20M average. And it is guaranteed. I think he would take that and I think he can get that.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Two things can be true.  Opt outs are a player benefit, teams don't put them in because they want to play roulette with what the rest of the contract is.  At the same time, an opt out *that is used* when a player is at the end of their prime is not necessarily a bad thing for the team.  A player outproducing the contract for several years opting out at age 30 doesn't mean the team would have signed them to the remainder of the original contract at that point. The value of FA deals is always front-loaded, so just because you were comfortable with that downside originally doesn't mean you'd optionally sign up for it again after you've gotten the main benefit.

EDIT:  I should also add that players/agents are generally savvy enough to put opt outs in a place where that potential *shrug* response to opting out from a team is less likely.  Soto will play all next year at 26, he's less likely to be looking for an opt out after 5-6 years than he is at 2-3.  Macroeconomic conditions are hazier than they have been though, so this isn't an ironclad rule.

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

You can disagree all you want. It simply doesn't make sense from a team stand point which is why these contracts dont come with opt outs.

A team is on the hook for the entire contract. There is no opt out for the organization. So if you are throwing that kind of money on the table then you are already accepting the possibility the last few years might suck. But you are doing that on the basis that this player is probably going to be one of the best damn players in the game for a lot of that deal and by the time the contract is coming to an end, the $40M+ he signed for 14 years ago is a smaller % of your payroll.

If I'm the person handing out $600M in guaranteed money, your not getting out of the deal. I'm taking all the risk. The player isn't leaving money on the table where an opt out is even a negotiation.

I agree with everything you just said. The opt out never benefits the team. I also agree it is seldom offered. That said, if Soto had to have one, as long as it was not after the first 3 years of the contract, I would give it to him. How does it hurt the team either way? If he is a super signing that means they get 4 great years out of him. And he leaves. Ok, fine. If he doesn’t leave, than the opt out didn’t hurt the team. I think the opt out issue is how soon it comes in a contract, not the opt out, itself. I agree that if it is after year 1 or 2, no way. Not very comfortable with year 3 either, but if other things are written into the contract, like deferred money, that keeps the contract at a “reasonable” salary towards the cap space and because of that Soto wants the option to leave, I might be ok with after 3 years. All I am saying is it wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me as long as it isn’t after every year and it doesn’t come in until after year 4, (maybe 3).

[Cuzi]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree with everything you just said. The opt out never benefits the team. I also agree it is seldom offered. That said, if Soto had to have one, as long as it was not after the first 3 years of the contract, I would give it to him. How does it hurt the team either way? If he is a super signing that means they get 4 great years out of him. And he leaves. Ok, fine. If he doesn’t leave, than the opt out didn’t hurt the team. I think the opt out issue is how soon it comes in a contract, not the opt out, itself. I agree that if it is after year 1 or 2, no way. Not very comfortable with year 3 either, but if other things are written into the contract, like deferred money, that keeps the contract at a “reasonable” salary towards the cap space and because of that Soto wants the option to leave, I might be ok with after 3 years. All I am saying is it wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me as long as it isn’t after every year and it doesn’t come in until after year 4, (maybe 3).

It's not "Ok fine" if he leaves. It's now my entire roster construction just got crumpled up and thrown in the trash because one of the best players in the league that I've built my team around just walked out the door. But it's ok... I'll just go get another Soto, right?

[Rcal10]

19 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

It's not "Ok fine" if he leaves. It's now my entire roster construction just got crumpled up and thrown in the trash because one of the best players in the league that I've built my team around just walked out the door. But it's ok... I'll just go get another Soto, right?

Look, all I am saying is if he had to have one that wouldn’t be the deal breaker. What is your option? They don’t sign him? So they don’t get 4 great years because of a possibility he MIGHT leave at 30 years old to get a better deal? Honestly, if he stuck to having to have this, you wouldn’t want them to put it in the contract rather than lose him for the 4 years they could have him? 

[Cuzi]

8 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Look, all I am saying is if he had to have one that wouldn’t be the deal breaker. What is your option? They don’t sign him? So they don’t get 4 great years because of a possibility he MIGHT leave at 30 years old to get a better deal? Honestly, if he stuck to having to have this, you wouldn’t want them to put it in the contract rather than lose him for the 4 years they could have him? 

Nope. I'd call his bluff and tell him to go get more money from another team. Good luck.

[Rex Buckingham]

20 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Nope. I'd call his bluff and tell him to go get more money from another team. Good luck.

That's a foolish take. If Juan Soto says, "I want to sign with you, if you'll just put an opt-out in there for me after year x." You put the opt-out in. Even if it's after year 1, you put it in because you get to have Juan Soto for a year and he's going to make your baseball team a lot better

Edited October 3, 2024 by Rex Buckingham

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Nope. I'd call his bluff and tell him to go get more money from another team. Good luck.

Great idea. Then when he gets it from another team the Cubs fan base will be all over Jed because he let a stupid clause in the contract not allow the Cubs to have Soto for AT LEAST 4 years. 
Is not having him at all better than having him for at least 4 years? Even in your scenario where he leaves and the Cubs have to restructure the team after he is gone, isn’t that where they are now if they don’t sign him? If he left after 4 years don’t they then have whatever money was earmarked for him available after that time? I totally understand not liking opt outs. But to have it be a deal breaker is not acceptable. 

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

That's a foolish take. If Juan Soto says, "I want to sign with you, if you'll just put an opt-out in there for me after year x." You put the opt-out in. Even if it's after year 1, you put it in because you get to have Juan Soto for a year and he's going to make your baseball team a lot better

Disagree if it is year 1. Even after year 2, I wouldn’t do it. Once it gets to 3 maybe it would be considered, but rather it be year 4. I don’t want him for 1 year. It can’t be one and done. 

[CubinNY]

If Cody opts out, I'm hyper-focused on trading Nico, moving Busch to 2nd base, and signing Vlad. Or they could keep Nico and have Vlad as a DH. But I want Vlad. 

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

If Cody opts out, I'm hyper-focused on trading Nico, moving Busch to 2nd base, and signing Vlad. Or they could keep Nico and have Vlad as a DH. But I want Vlad. 

I would love Belli to opt out and the Cubs trade for Vlad. But similar to the Soto discussion, I wouldn’t want Vlad for one year. They would have to extend him. Don’t like the idea of trading Nico and moving Busch to second, however. Without Belli, Vlad, Busch or Parades can DH. 

[muntjack]

So very right-handed.  Hard to construct a balanced lineup if Belli is replaced by a righty.  You just have to stagger Happ, Busch and PCA amongst the 6 RHH. 

 

[Joj]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

If Cody opts out, I'm hyper-focused on trading Nico, moving Busch to 2nd base, and signing Vlad. Or they could keep Nico and have Vlad as a DH. But I want Vlad. 

To me, Nico is the leadoff man this team has needed for 30 years.  At least until Armstrong showed up.  And you know he can play any position on the field.

 

Busch is ok but I wouldn't block (or not trade for) anyone because of him.  In reality,, though, that's why he's here (cheap, controlled=untouchable).  I've begrudgingly made peace with it.

 

Happ, Suzuki, Belli.  1 or 2 of the 3 can go and it's fine.  If they aren't desperately trying to move Happ, there should be an investigation.

[Joj]

14 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I would love Belli to opt out and the Cubs trade for Vlad. But similar to the Soto discussion, I wouldn’t want Vlad for one year. They would have to extend him. Don’t like the idea of trading Nico and moving Busch to second, however. Without Belli, Vlad, Busch or Parades can DH. 

Busch has been a 2B his whole life and would likely be fine there but that would mean Hoerner is traded which is raising my blood pressure just thinking about it.

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, muntjack said:

So very right-handed.  Hard to construct a balanced lineup if Belli is replaced by a righty.  You just have to stagger Happ, Busch and PCA amongst the 6 RHH. 

 

This is actually the thing I struggle with most this offseason.  I am not super desperate for a guy I can latch onto as an "elite bat."  But at the same time I:

A) Think the #1 thing this offense needs is a lefty masher, and obviously those guys are almost overwhelmingly righties

and 

B) Like you also don't like the way the lineup is balanced after adding that lefty masher

I really wish there was a good versatile lefty infielder we could add to the bench as the 10th on the position player side.  Gen Z Ben Zobrist essentially. You could add a lefty masher and also this unnamed infielder and put the lineup in a really good position every single day.

But this left handed infielder I want doesn't seem to exist.  You either get guys who can't really cover defensively like Brandon Lowe, or Miles Mastrobuoni types who have the defense and can hit at AAA but have not shown they can hit in the bigs yet.

[Cuzi]

49 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Great idea. Then when he gets it from another team the Cubs fan base will be all over Jed because he let a stupid clause in the contract not allow the Cubs to have Soto for AT LEAST 4 years. 
Is not having him at all better than having him for at least 4 years? Even in your scenario where he leaves and the Cubs have to restructure the team after he is gone, isn’t that where they are now if they don’t sign him? If he left after 4 years don’t they then have whatever money was earmarked for him available after that time? I totally understand not liking opt outs. But to have it be a deal breaker is not acceptable. 

That's fine with me. If they legitimately offer $600M and he chooses a different team then I'm not going to hold it against them. While it would suck to not get him, at the same time you aren't planning on Soto being the center piece of your roster for 8+ years and potentially getting the rug pulled out from under you after 3. So you can move on with plan B accordingly.

Edited October 3, 2024 by Cuzi

[Rcal10]

43 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

That's fine with me. If they legitimately offer $600M and he chooses a different team then I'm not going to hold it against them. While it would suck to not get him, at the same time you aren't planning on Soto being the center piece of your roster for 8+ years and potentially getting the rug pulled out from under you after 3. So you can move on with plan B accordingly.

Don’t see the downside of having him and him maybe leaving after 4 years, but guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 

[Rcal10]

54 minutes ago, Bertz said:

This is actually the thing I struggle with most this offseason.  I am not super desperate for a guy I can latch onto as an "elite bat."  But at the same time I:

A) Think the #1 thing this offense needs is a lefty masher, and obviously those guys are almost overwhelmingly righties

and 

B) Like you also don't like the way the lineup is balanced after adding that lefty masher

I really wish there was a good versatile lefty infielder we could add to the bench as the 10th on the position player side.  Gen Z Ben Zobrist essentially. You could add a lefty masher and also this unnamed infielder and put the lineup in a really good position every single day.

But this left handed infielder I want doesn't seem to exist.  You either get guys who can't really cover defensively like Brandon Lowe, or Miles Mastrobuoni types who have the defense and can hit at AAA but have not shown they can hit in the bigs yet.

Ok, Bellinger opts out and they trade for Tucker instead of Vlad. Problem solved. Again, have to sign him long term though. 

[Cuzi]

8 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Don’t see the downside of having him and him maybe leaving after 4 years, but guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 

Every team in baseball signing these deals see's a downside that you disagree with. Only Cole and Yamamoto have gotten opt outs. Cole's opt out can be voided by the Yankees, if he exercises it. Yamamoto's opt out comes at age 30 because the Dodgers gave him the years to stretch out enough dollars to make him the highest paid pitcher in baseball, but really he's bringing in way less on a yearly basis. So by the time his opt out comes around, assuming he pitches up to his ace potential he showed, he'll be getting paid half his worth, so it's basically a sure thing.