General Offseason Priorities

[Rcal10]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

When was the last time a player was traded with an extension already in place? They don't happen. That has no whiff of changing any time soon. Lindor and Betts both were traded and then signed months after. That's the best case scenario. 

It's probably better to say "I would hope that the team was committed to offering them a market value deal upon trading for them" because if they are, chances are they can extend a Kyle Tucker or a Vlad later. But it's not happening on trade day.

This is true. But, I certainly would hope they know what a guy would take to not go to free agency and know they are comfortable going to that place before making a trade. And then lock him up long term, soon after they trade for him. And if they don’t pretty much know they can get him locked in, I would rather not trade for a one year rental. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

This is true. But, I certainly would hope they know what a guy would take to not go to free agency and know they are comfortable going to that place before making a trade. And then lock him up long term, soon after they trade for him. And if they don’t pretty much know they can get him locked in, I would rather not trade for a one year rental. 

No one wants to trade for a rental. But there's no way you're going to get a 10+ year contract extension already signed and delivered on trade day and we need to stop acting like that's a barrier to entry in trading for a Vlad or a Tucker. 

You trade for them and your best hope is that the team is prepared to work with their new acquisition over the following 2-4 months in locking them down and offering them market value. You hope that the player is interested in signing a market value deal before the market. That's best case scenario. 

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

No one wants to trade for a rental. But there's no way you're going to get a 10+ year contract extension already signed and delivered on trade day and we need to stop acting like that's a barrier to entry in trading for a Vlad or a Tucker. 

You trade for them and your best hope is that the team is prepared to work with their new acquisition over the following 2-4 months in locking them down and offering them market value. You hope that the player is interested in signing a market value deal before the market. That's best case scenario. 

Then I guess I wouldn’t want to trade for Vlad or Tucker, then. Not if they aren’t almost certain they can get a deal done, because they know what he wants and are comfortable giving him what he wants, And I am pretty sure it would be a barrier to this FO too. If Jed has been consistent with one theme, it has been long term sustained success. I would be shocked if he decided to trade for a rental without pretty much knowing he could get an extension done. They didn’t do it last off season with Alonso or a few others, and I wouldn’t expect them to do it this year either.  

[thawv]

53 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

When was the last time a player was traded with an extension already in place? They don't happen. That has no whiff of changing any time soon. Lindor and Betts both were traded and then signed months after. That's the best case scenario. 

It's probably better to say "I would hope that the team was committed to offering them a market value deal upon trading for them" because if they are, chances are they can extend a Kyle Tucker or a Vlad later. But it's not happening on trade day.

If that's your hard limit you'd never trade for a player who's on his last year. 

The signing came later.  But I believe an agreement was in place before the trade.  

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Then I guess I wouldn’t want to trade for Vlad or Tucker, then. Not if they aren’t almost certain they can get a deal done, because they know what he wants and are comfortable giving him what he wants, And I am pretty sure it would be a barrier to this FO too. If Jed has been consistent with one theme, it has been long term sustained success. I would be shocked if he decided to trade for a rental without pretty much knowing he could get an extension done. They didn’t do it last off season with Alonso or a few others, and I wouldn’t expect them to do it this year either.  

I think that's a really poor reason to not want to trade for Tucker and Vlad. The reality is their trade value is only tied to one year regardless of whether or not you extend him. The extension has nothing to do with their trade value, they're two entirely separate transactions. As well, I don't think anyone is going to know an extension would be done.

Again, Lindor signed March 31st - three full months after his trade. Mookie Betts? Six months. I would expect the best you'd get from Vlad or Tucker (or anyone) would be "yeah, I could be interested.". Unless they're just100% dead set on the market (like Juan Soto seemingly was), the Cubs are a team I would expect most players would at least be open to signing a market value deal with - they're a pretty good team in a division without a true hegemonic power with the money to offer that kind of a deal.

I'd also say this: the rest of that post is unimportant. If you don't think Jed Hoyer was going to extend Tucker or Vlad a few months after the trade, than he wasn't going to trade for him and have that extension in place to begin with, either, because he'd never offer that deal. But I also don't think Hoyer would trade for one of those players without interest in signing them to a market value contract, either. So I think that concern is just...unneeded. If they do trade for a 1-year player I fully expect that player to at least indicate interest in discussing long term and the Cubs to be interested and knowledgeable of offering a market value deal. 

I know we're conditioned to believe that Jed Hoyer's a big baby bitch who will never sign an 8+ year contract, but I don't share the same level of doom and gloom there. From all reports, he offered a ton of money to Ohtani. There are exceptions. I don't think Juan Soto is likely, but I could see a world where Vlad or Tucker would fit into exceptions. That's not me saying that's going to happen, just that I think Hoyer's following the Dodger's playbook in the mid-2010's under Friedman and until Friedman signed Betts, he wasn't signing 8+ year deals either.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, thawv said:

The signing came later.  But I believe an agreement was in place before the trade.  

You think the New York Mets waited three months to sign a player they had an agreement with? They traded for him January 7th and signed him March 31st, the day before Opening Day. 

That's not what happened.

https://www.mlb.com/news/francisco-lindor-mets-deal

It didn't look like the two sides were going to agree pre-season until the Mets upped their offer right before Opening Day.

Quote

As Thursday's Opening Day neared, it appeared as if the agreement might never happen. Late in Spring Training, the Mets extended an offer worth around $300 million to Lindor, according to a person with knowledge of the negotiations. Lindor countered with a $385 million asking price, which Mets officials considered exorbitant. Still, over dinner in Florida last weekend, Cohen personally extended what he considered the team’s best and final offer: $325 million over 10 seasons. He then removed all deferred money from the deal, making it richer in real-world value than the 14-year, $340 million contract Fernando Tatis Jr. recently signed with the Padres.

Next came a days-long impasse in which neither side budged. With Lindor’s Opening Day deadline rapidly approaching, talks finally reopened late Wednesday.

When those discussions finished, the sides came away with a revamped deal that includes about $50 million in deferred money, according to a source. It allows Lindor to claim the richest contract in history for a shortstop, topping Tatis by $1 million.

 

[thawv]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

You think the New York Mets waited three months to sign a player they had an agreement with?

Yes, for sure.  What difference does it make?  They still have him under contract for the remainder of his contract.  There's no need to announce an extension the day they trade for him.  I was under the impression that they can't negotiate with a player who's under contract with another team.  So they wait to actually do the signing.  

Edited October 5, 2024 by thawv

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, thawv said:

Yes, for sure.  What difference does it make?  They still have him under contract for the remainder of his contract.  There's no need to announce an extension the day they trade for him.  I was under the impression that they can't negotiate with a player who's under contract with another team.  So they wait to actually do the signing.  

Did you even bother to look at the link I provided? Thaw, it didn't happen that way. I'm not trying to sound rude, but I provided that link for a reason and it's because it explains what happened during negotiations.

You have invented a completely non-substantiated narrative here. We can't just invent things. It's entirely clear from the reporting on the matter by people who actually have sources and connections with teams that the two sides did not have an agreement and just...waited three months.

[thawv]

8 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Did you even bother to look at the link I provided? Thaw, it didn't happen that way. I'm not trying to sound rude, but I provided that link for a reason and it's because it explains what happened during negotiations.

You have invented a completely non-substantiated narrative here. We can't just invent things. It's entirely clear from the reporting on the matter by people who actually have sources and connections with teams that the two sides did not have an agreement and just...waited three months.

I'm sorry, but I may have misspoke.  I'm certain that it does happen before a trade is made.  I don't know if this case happened, but I'm positive that it happens. 

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, thawv said:

I'm sorry, but I may have misspoke.  I'm certain that it does happen before a trade is made.  I don't know if this case happened, but I'm positive that it happens. 

If it happens. please show the last time it happened. It shouldn't be hard since it does happen, according to you. Show me the last time a player signed a contract of 8+ years and that contract was agreed pre-trade in the MLB. I really don't mean to sound aggressive, but it's not really thing and I think you're thinking about sports in general. These are things that happen, especially, in the NBA, but do not occur in the MLB. It's cool that you don't have a log of these transactions! I don't either. It's just good to look these things up before we create the narrative. 

What happens, almost exclusively is that:

1. A player plays out his one year and hits the FA market. I.E. Juan Soto

2. A player eventually signs a contract later. I.E. Mookie Betts and Francisco Lindor. 

The closest that it's happened was Sean Murphy in 2022. He was traded and then two weeks later signed a 6+ year extension worth under $75m. Which was a pretty big deal, but far short of the mega deals we're talking here. Tucker and Vlad are looking at hundreds of millions and 10+ years, possibly worth three times that of the Murphy extension. No one I can find has signed a contract like that within two weeks of a trade. It takes months.

If the Cubs were to trade for a player on a one year contract, it won't come with the mega extension in place. Your best bet is that before OD, the two sides get it done. Or in the summer. But it won't come in January, regardless.

[thawv]

15 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

If it happens. please show the last time it happened. It shouldn't be hard since it does happen, according to you. Show me the last time a player signed a contract of 8+ years and that contract was agreed pre-trade in the MLB. I really don't mean to sound aggressive, but it's not really thing and I think you're thinking about sports in general. These are things that happen, especially, in the NBA, but do not occur in the MLB. It's cool that you don't have a log of these transactions! I don't either. It's just good to look these things up before we create the narrative. 

What happens, almost exclusively is that:

1. A player plays out his one year and hits the FA market. I.E. Juan Soto

2. A player eventually signs a contract later. I.E. Mookie Betts and Francisco Lindor. 

The closest that it's happened was Sean Murphy in 2022. He was traded and then two weeks later signed a 6+ year extension worth under $75m. Which was a pretty big deal, but far short of the mega deals we're talking here. Tucker and Vlad are looking at hundreds of millions and 10+ years, possibly worth three times that of the Murphy extension. No one I can find has signed a contract like that within two weeks of a trade. It takes months.

If the Cubs were to trade for a player on a one year contract, it won't come with the mega extension in place. Your best bet is that before OD, the two sides get it done. Or in the summer. But it won't come in January, regardless.

I thought they are not allowed to negotiate a contract while they are still with their current team  If that's the case, you will NEVER hear about it.  

[Rcal10]

26 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think that's a really poor reason to not want to trade for Tucker and Vlad. The reality is their trade value is only tied to one year regardless of whether or not you extend him. The extension has nothing to do with their trade value, they're two entirely separate transactions. As well, I don't think anyone is going to know an extension would be done.

Again, Lindor signed March 31st - three full months after his trade. Mookie Betts? Six months. I would expect the best you'd get from Vlad or Tucker (or anyone) would be "yeah, I could be interested.". Unless they're just100% dead set on the market (like Juan Soto seemingly was), the Cubs are a team I would expect most players would at least be open to signing a market value deal with - they're a pretty good team in a division without a true hegemonic power with the money to offer that kind of a deal.

I'd also say this: the rest of that post is unimportant. If you don't think Jed Hoyer was going to extend Tucker or Vlad a few months after the trade, than he wasn't going to trade for him and have that extension in place to begin with, either, because he'd never offer that deal. But I also don't think Hoyer would trade for one of those players without interest in signing them to a market value contract, either. So I think that concern is just...unneeded. If they do trade for a 1-year player I fully expect that player to at least indicate interest in discussing long term and the Cubs to be interested and knowledgeable of offering a market value deal. 

I know we're conditioned to believe that Jed Hoyer's a big baby bitch who will never sign an 8+ year contract, but I don't share the same level of doom and gloom there. From all reports, he offered a ton of money to Ohtani. There are exceptions. I don't think Juan Soto is likely, but I could see a world where Vlad or Tucker would fit into exceptions. That's not me saying that's going to happen, just that I think Hoyer's following the Dodger's playbook in the mid-2010's under Friedman and until Friedman signed Betts, he wasn't signing 8+ year deals either.

Don’t put me in the camp that’s conditioned to believe Jed won’t sign a long term deal for the right person. That is  it what I am saying. But I am in the camp that does not believe Jed would trade for a 1 year rental unless he had a very good idea what the player wanted and was comfortable providing that sort of deal to the player. If the Cubs did trade for a rental like Tucker or Vlad or even a high end pitcher in the last year of his deal, I would be shocked if they did not also extend that player. Whether it took 2 weeks or 2 months after the trade, I would expect an extension. And I doubt they would trade for someone without knowing they could sign him. I mean it goes against everything Jed has done up until now and what he is still suggesting. Long term sustained success. If he doesn’t think he could sign a guy long term I would expect him to do more trades for guys with years left on deals. Guys like Rooker(of course, why would the A’s trade him), maybe O’Hoppe, Schmidt, Gore, a pitcher on Seattle, etc….. I am sure there are several others that fit. 
Keep in mind, my take on trading for rentals doesn’t matter. As you said, the cost will be based on them only having one year left. So you don’t have to give up as much as you would if they had several years left. I get that. But so far, anyway, Jed has stayed away from a big trade for a one year rental. So, IMO, it is his take. Maybe he proves me wrong? 

[Joj]

3 hours ago, thawv said:

Busch was a first baseman with a little LF action during his college career.  The Dodgers moved him off of his natural position because they liked Muncy.  Bush was not good at 2B, and he was not good at 3B either.  When they signed Freddie, Busch became expendable.  Playing 2B was a change of position for him. 

Busch was a high school shortstop and played there growing up.  Of course, positions are somewhat determined by roster makeup as 1B/LF were available in NC.  But he also bounced around and played plenty of 2B and 3B.  Busch was drafted as a 2B and has played there his entire pro career.  He is certainly more comfortable at 2B (and probably 3b).  Busch started playing 1B again just this year with the Cubs because they needed a 1B.   Before that...

2B - 242 pro games

3B - 74

1B - 22

LF - 16

When Busch first got called up last season he replaced Muncy at 3B, not 2B.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Joj

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

Don’t put me in the camp that’s conditioned to believe Jed won’t sign a long term deal for the right person. That is  it what I am saying. But I am in the camp that does not believe Jed would trade for a 1 year rental unless he had a very good idea what the player wanted and was comfortable providing that sort of deal to the player. If the Cubs did trade for a rental like Tucker or Vlad or even a high end pitcher in the last year of his deal, I would be shocked if they did not also extend that player. Whether it took 2 weeks or 2 months after the trade, I would expect an extension. And I doubt they would trade for someone without knowing they could sign him. I mean it goes against everything Jed has done up until now and what he is still suggesting. Long term sustained success. If he doesn’t think he could sign a guy long term I would expect him to do more trades for guys with years left on deals. Guys like Rooker(of course, why would the A’s trade him), maybe O’Hoppe, Schmidt, Gore, a pitcher on Seattle, etc….. I am sure there are several others that fit. 
Keep in mind, my take on trading for rentals doesn’t matter. As you said, the cost will be based on them only having one year left. So you don’t have to give up as much as you would if they had several years left. I get that. But so far, anyway, Jed has stayed away from a big trade for a one year rental. So, IMO, it is his take. Maybe he proves me wrong? 

I didn't put you in any camp. I used "we" as in the collective fanbase. Not "you" as an individual. 

I would also expect that the Cubs would not trade for a 1-year contract in the vein of Tucker or Vlad (they'd trade for other 1 year deals that cost less, however) without some sort of indication that the player would be open to discussing a long term extension. I would stop short of expecting an extension, however, as you can never know how that will go. But I'd go into the trade with the assumption that the Cubs understand their market value, that they couldn't get a sweetheart deal and would have to offer that market value contract, and that the player was not dead-set to hit the market regardless of offer. 

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

I think Soto is a good bet over the longer term. I don't feel as confident with Vlad.

They're both on a HOF path and we all know that Hoyer/Ricketts isn't going to sign Soto.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, thawv said:

I would love Vald, but there has to be a Cubs extension in place before I trade for a 1 year rental, and end up losing him in the FA market. 

I'd definitely want Soto over Vlad longterm.  Vlad has always struggled with weight issues and that's in his early 20s, those guys tend to break down.  On a longterm deal he'll get the incentive to keep the weight down is significantly less.  Unless they put in a fat clause lol

[Stratos]

9 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

They're both on a HOF path and we all know that Hoyer/Ricketts isn't going to sign Soto.

Vlad is going to want FA money on any extension.  I don't think he extends with anyone, i think he waits for FA.  The likelihood we trade for Vlad or Tucker is very low IMO.

Last offseason everyone talked about Ohtani and Alonso the whole winter.   Now it's Soto and Vlad.  Makes a lot more sense to talk about the players we have far more likelihood of landing.

[Stratos]

10 hours ago, Cuzi said:

If you give Schmidt Imanaga's innings this year, Schmidt is our best pitcher and he pitches in the AL East and it's his sophomore season as a starter in MLB. He's 79th percentile in missing bats. Taillon is 7th. Schmidt is better than Taillon and it's not really that close, imo. Taillon writes checks that his defense cashes.

The Cubs can sign a Schmidt, but that version of Schmidt isn't going to cost $5M.

The xERA and xFIP are around the same.   He doesn't get credit for throwing innings he didn't throw.

[Cuzi]

20 minutes ago, Stratos said:

The xERA and xFIP are around the same.   He doesn't get credit for throwing innings he didn't throw.

Who is giving him credit for innings he didn't pitch? You are acting like Schmidt is Taillon. Schmidt got injured and missed a few months mid season. I was simply showing how good he was pitching and in a full season he was pacing for a full WAR better than Taillon, or 150% of Taillons worth and he cost $2M.

I guess that's "close."

[chibears55]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:18 PM, Rcal10 said:

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. 

I hope so too but we all know it going to depend on whether or not Rickett willing to go over the Threshold in offseason or they make trades, especially if Bellinger returns.

[Rcal10]

30 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

I hope so too but we all know it going to depend on whether or not Rickett willing to go over the Threshold in offseason or they make trades, especially if Bellinger returns.

Truth is you are probably right and they will most likely settle for a lesser bat rather than swinging for the big guys (Soto, Vlad, Rooker, Tucker). Probably more like Winker or Lowe. They kind of fit your left handed bat idea. Maybe Santander? 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rcal10

[thawv]

19 hours ago, Joj said:

Busch was a high school shortstop and played there growing up.  Of course, positions are somewhat determined by roster makeup as 1B/LF were available in NC.  But he also bounced around and played plenty of 2B and 3B.  Busch was drafted as a 2B and has played there his entire pro career.  He is certainly more comfortable at 2B (and probably 3b).  Busch started playing 1B again just this year with the Cubs because they needed a 1B.   Before that...

2B - 242 pro games

3B - 74

1B - 22

LF - 16

When Busch first got called up last season he replaced Muncy at 3B, not 2B.

High school??  Where did he play in little league?  Just kidding.
 

He played 1B in college, and was drafted as a first baseman.  LAD moved him to 2B.  They wanted to play Muncy at 1B more often.  Busch was very bad at 2B and 3B.  They signed Freddie leaving no spot for Busch.  Yes, he played most of his minor league games at 2B.  But that was a position change for him.

Edited October 6, 2024 by thawv

[thawv]

19 hours ago, Stratos said:

I'd definitely want Soto over Vlad longterm.  Vlad has always struggled with weight issues and that's in his early 20s, those guys tend to break down.  On a longterm deal he'll get the incentive to keep the weight down is significantly less.  Unless they put in a fat clause lol

I wasn't making a choice.  I was responding to a Vlad post.  I'd rather have Soto also. 

[Rcal10]

5 hours ago, thawv said:

High school??  Where did he play in little league?  Just kidding.
 

He played 1B in college, and was drafted as a first baseman.  LAD moved him to 2B.  They wanted to play Muncy at 1B more often.  Busch was very bad at 2B and 3B.  They signed Freddie leaving no spot for Busch.  Yes, he played most of his minor league games at 2B.  But that was a position change for him.

Talking about where he played in HS is a bit much. Basically the best player in the team is usually the guy who plays SS and/or pitches. But chibear is correct he did play second in the minors. As for not playing well there, I have to take the word of people here saying he was bad. I don’t like the idea of moving him to second and trading Nico. If they did get Vlad I would let him and Busch split first and DH. Open up second for Shaw. Or put Paredes at 2nd and bring Shaw up to play 3rd. This is assuming Bellinger opts out. Probably something we won’t have to worry about. Trading for a Vlad is just not something I see in the Jed game plan of building sustained success. Maybe they will fool me. But up until now they have not shown the willingness to do something that aggressive. 

[CubinNY]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:19 AM, Stratos said:

Vlad is going to want FA money on any extension.  I don't think he extends with anyone, i think he waits for FA.  The likelihood we trade for Vlad or Tucker is very low IMO.

Last offseason everyone talked about Ohtani and Alonso the whole winter.   Now it's Soto and Vlad.  Makes a lot more sense to talk about the players we have far more likelihood of landing.

Like who? I mean if you’re going to whine give us some meat.