General Offseason Priorities

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, Post Count Padder said:

What are thoughts on Kyle Higashioka one a one year deal to team with Amaya? Veteran with decent numbers behind the plate who provides some power. And gives us another year to see if Ballesteros is gonna be the guy at catcher. Also shouldn't cost a ton and savings can be used to help the pen.

It looks like Ballesteros is more DH than catcher.  According to Baseballtradevalues.com Ballesteros has a value of 21.9 while Raleigh is 19.8, O'Hoppe is 24.9, and Langeliers is at 20.  He probably wouldn't get any of those guys alone in a trade, but adding another prospect might get it done.

[Jason Ross]

16 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I think should they have a good idea by now what Bellasteros will or won't be capable of.  

I say this as someone who thinks' Ballesteros has an upward battle to stick behind the plate even in a part time role at the MLB level...but Moises Ballesteros hasn't even turned 21 yet. No, the Cubs don't and can't have a good idea of what he "will or won't" be capable of yet. 20 year olds are not finished products and the Cubs don't own a crystal ball. There are times we know things - like Owen Caissie will not be a not a capable MLB shortstop. But Ballesteros' ability long term behind the plate is very much in the "unknown" category...even to the Cubs. 

[thawv]

10 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Doing well thawv. Hope you are too. Now, back to baseball. No one is suggesting Mastrobuoni or Wisdom should be added to the 8 non catching regulars the Cubs have now. People are talking about Lowe or Tucker. If the Cubs added one of those guys who are the best 8. What 8 should play 155 games and who should only play 50 games. In reality, even with 9 guys for 8 positions, when you factor in inevitable injuries, guys that are healthy all year from the 9 guys being discussed would probably play 145-150 games anyway. That is more than enough, especially when you have a back up just as good. The best part of this plan, besides giving guys rest, is you always have a starting caliber player on the bench. 

The starting caliber bench player is great!  But it's going to cost dearly.  Also, with Tucker, it's never going to give an IF'er a day off.  Maybe Cody over Busch at times?  He's not playing CF, so it's just the corner OF'ers getting a day off.  

Look, as a fan, what they spend means zero to me.  It's not my money, and I couldn't care less about Ricketts' profits.  I just want a winner.  But we know that the budget is the single most important thing to Ricketts.  We have to watch what we spend.  Spending tens of millions on 4-5 guys that are going to rotate in and out of the lineup seems like a bad idea if money is the top priority.  Unless of course money is no object.  Which we already know is the #1 object.  I'd love to have four 20 million dollar a year guys on the bench!  But it's not realistic.  I know you're not suggesting that, but I'm just trying to make a point.  With the way the Cubs watch their money, I just can't see them paying a guy that kind of money to rotate in and out of the lineup.  I'd love to have that luxury, but I don't see it. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by thawv

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

The starting caliber bench player is great!  But it's going to cost dearly.  Also, with Tucker, it's never going to give an IF'er a day off.  Maybe Cody over Busch at times?  He's not playing CF, so it's just the corner OF'ers getting a day off.  

Look, as a fan, what they spend means zero to me.  It's not my money, and I couldn't care less about Ricketts' profits.  I just want a winner.  But we know that the budget is the single most important thing to Ricketts.  We have to watch what we spend.  Spending tens of millions on 4-5 guys that are going to rotate in and out of the lineup seems like a bad idea if money is the top priority.  Unless of course money is no object.  Which we already know is the #1 object.  I'd love to have four 20 million dollar a year guys on the bench!  But it's not realistic.  I know you're not suggesting that, but I'm just trying to make a point.  With the way the Cubs watch their money, I just can't see them paying a guy that kind of money to rotate in and out of the lineup.  I'd love to have that luxury, but I don't see it. 

I agree with you Tucker. I think he will cost too mich in in the way of assets and salary. And he is actually too good. He should play everyday. But if the Cubs added Lowe, his salary doesn’t hurt too much, especially if they trade some prospects for a starting pitcher. And his asset cost shouldn’t be too high since he is in the last year of his deal. He would also give infielders a day off as well as outfielders. Lowe can DH from time to time. Which would allow one of the 4 outfielders a day off. 

[squally1313]

2 hours ago, thawv said:

The starting caliber bench player is great!  But it's going to cost dearly.  Also, with Tucker, it's never going to give an IF'er a day off.  Maybe Cody over Busch at times?  He's not playing CF, so it's just the corner OF'ers getting a day off.  

Look, as a fan, what they spend means zero to me.  It's not my money, and I couldn't care less about Ricketts' profits.  I just want a winner.  But we know that the budget is the single most important thing to Ricketts.  We have to watch what we spend.  Spending tens of millions on 4-5 guys that are going to rotate in and out of the lineup seems like a bad idea if money is the top priority.  Unless of course money is no object.  Which we already know is the #1 object.  I'd love to have four 20 million dollar a year guys on the bench!  But it's not realistic.  I know you're not suggesting that, but I'm just trying to make a point.  With the way the Cubs watch their money, I just can't see them paying a guy that kind of money to rotate in and out of the lineup.  I'd love to have that luxury, but I don't see it. 

Do some creative thinking. They aren't paying big money to a guy to rotate in and out of the lineup. They're paying the league minimum for PCA to do it. Maybe he starts in center! Maybe he pushes Bellinger to left and gives Happ a day off! Maybe he pushes him to right and gives Tucker a day off! Maybe he pushes him to first and gives Busch a day off! Does that make it sound better?

[Rcal10]

53 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Do some creative thinking. They aren't paying big money to a guy to rotate in and out of the lineup. They're paying the league minimum for PCA to do it. Maybe he starts in center! Maybe he pushes Bellinger to left and gives Happ a day off! Maybe he pushes him to right and gives Tucker a day off! Maybe he pushes him to first and gives Busch a day off! Does that make it sound better?

You are using Tucker, which is fine. But IMO, if the did something like this someone like Lowe would be more likely. He cost less in salary and assets and with him the platoon can be 9 guys for 8 positions. With Tucker it would only be 6 guys for 5 positions. Yes, Tucker is clearly a better player, but he is not typically someone Jed goes with. Lowe fits the entire Cubs team. Good, not great talent. Which, to me, makes him way more probable. 
Plus,

if you trade for Lowe, technology they can just keep Tauchman for the bench too. So all they would need is a right handed bench bat and a catcher. Bench bat can play anywhere. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Rcal10

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I say this as someone who thinks' Ballesteros has an upward battle to stick behind the plate even in a part time role at the MLB level...but Moises Ballesteros hasn't even turned 21 yet. No, the Cubs don't and can't have a good idea of what he "will or won't" be capable of yet. 20 year olds are not finished products and the Cubs don't own a crystal ball. There are times we know things - like Owen Caissie will not be a not a capable MLB shortstop. But Ballesteros' ability long term behind the plate is very much in the "unknown" category...even to the Cubs. 

Obviously they don't know his "ability long term" behind the plate, considering the weight issues, and I never argued longterm viability.  Nor did I say he was a finished product.  Obviously skills can be improved on, e.g. framing, throwing accuracy etc.  But they should have a good idea by now about how well he moves behind the plate, whether he'll be quick enough on the throw transfer and the arm strength to be able to throw runners out etc.  If he's slow on the throw transfer or has mediocre arm strength or is slow to move to block balls because of his size and athleticism then expecting those physical abilities to improve much if at all as he ages is unlikely.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Do some creative thinking. They aren't paying big money to a guy to rotate in and out of the lineup. They're paying the league minimum for PCA to do it. Maybe he starts in center! Maybe he pushes Bellinger to left and gives Happ a day off! Maybe he pushes him to right and gives Tucker a day off! Maybe he pushes him to first and gives Busch a day off! Does that make it sound better?

Can't see any all-star caliber OF being acquired without a current Cub OF getting traded.  They could carry a solid RHB bench OF.  Trading good prospects for a top player with only 1 year before FA also hasn't been something Jed has ever done.

I think if a major trade happens it probably brings a catcher or pitching.

[thawv]

8 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Do some creative thinking. They aren't paying big money to a guy to rotate in and out of the lineup. They're paying the league minimum for PCA to do it. Maybe he starts in center! Maybe he pushes Bellinger to left and gives Happ a day off! Maybe he pushes him to right and gives Tucker a day off! Maybe he pushes him to first and gives Busch a day off! Does that make it sound better?

I agree with all of this.  Because of the cost of having to pay Tucker, Happ, Belli, and Suzuki tens of millions of dollars, while money is the #1 concern for Ricketts, I just don't see it as a viable option at all.  It's not about creativity or doability.  It's about money. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by thawv

[CubinNY]

I have a question: Let's say for the sake of argument that the Cubs trade for a minor leaguer who is on the 40-man roster for his team. Does that mean he automatically has to be added to the 40-man for the Cubs? 

This is purely an academic question, no context. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by CubinNY

[Cuzi]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I have a question: Let's say for the sake of argument that the Cubs trade for a minor leaguer who is on the 40-man roster for his team. Does that mean he automatically has to be added to the 40-man for the Cubs? 

This is purely an academic question, no context. 

Yes. They could try and DFA the player after the trade.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Cuzi

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

I agree with all of this.  Because of the cost of having to pay Tucker, Happ, Belli, and Suzuki tens of millions of dollars, while money is the #1 concern for Ricketts, I just don't see it as a viable option at all.  It's not about creativity or doability.  It's about money. 

I agree it won’t be Tucker. His salary will be too high, it is only 1 year before he hits free agency, he probably should play 155 games, the Astros probably won’t trade him, and he might cost too much in minor league assets. But why not Lowe? He cost $10M this year and the Cubs would have an option for him in 26. He fills in for Nico now. He is similar to the players he would be mixing with. So playing 140 games works for him. And he is on a team who is known to trade guys around this time. If the Cubs did make a trade for one of the Seattle starters or Crochet, there is plenty of money to add a $10M bat. Honestly they would still have enough money to add someone like Tanner Scott for the pen, keep Tauchman as the 5th outfielders and add a catcher by trade or free agency. All that would be left is picking up a right handed bat for the bench and maybe another pen arm. 
depending on how aggressive Jed wants to be with prospect trades he could deal for Langeliers and get a catcher cheap too. Which, even keeping Tauchman and spending big on the pen arm, he would have roughly $20M for a right handed bench bat and maybe another pen arm. Even if my numbers are of some and they don’t have $20M, we are talking about adding the last bat on the team and maybe a pen arm. There would be enough money for that. We are also talking about adding Scott. They could cut some cost there too and get a different lefty for less. Point is, if they do fill the rotation with a cheaper, young, controlled starting pitcher via trade they do have money to use to add aggressively elsewhere. I agree that most likely this doesn’t happen. All I am trying to show is that with something like this you can play 9 guys at 8 positions effectively. You don’t need a set line up for 155-160 games a year. 

[thawv]

8 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree it won’t be Tucker. His salary will be too high, it is only 1 year before he hits free agency, he probably should play 155 games, the Astros probably won’t trade him, and he might cost too much in minor league assets. But why not Lowe? He cost $10M this year and the Cubs would have an option for him in 26. He fills in for Nico now. He is similar to the players he would be mixing with. So playing 140 games works for him. And he is on a team who is known to trade guys around this time. If the Cubs did make a trade for one of the Seattle starters or Crochet, there is plenty of money to add a $10M bat. Honestly they would still have enough money to add someone like Tanner Scott for the pen, keep Tauchman as the 5th outfielders and add a catcher by trade or free agency. All that would be left is picking up a right handed bat for the bench and maybe another pen arm. 
depending on how aggressive Jed wants to be with prospect trades he could deal for Langeliers and get a catcher cheap too. Which, even keeping Tauchman and spending big on the pen arm, he would have roughly $20M for a right handed bench bat and maybe another pen arm. Even if my numbers are of some and they don’t have $20M, we are talking about adding the last bat on the team and maybe a pen arm. There would be enough money for that. We are also talking about adding Scott. They could cut some cost there too and get a different lefty for less. Point is, if they do fill the rotation with a cheaper, young, controlled starting pitcher via trade they do have money to use to add aggressively elsewhere. I agree that most likely this doesn’t happen. All I am trying to show is that with something like this you can play 9 guys at 8 positions effectively. You don’t need a set line up for 155-160 games a year. 

Nice work!  This is a logical well thought out post.  

I don't think that Jed really has it in him to trade his pride and joy, which are prospects.  But that seems like the best way to acquire talent without breaking the bank.  Allowing them to buy needs with the left over money. 

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree it won’t be Tucker. His salary will be too high, it is only 1 year before he hits free agency, he probably should play 155 games, the Astros probably won’t trade him, and he might cost too much in minor league assets. But why not Lowe? He cost $10M this year and the Cubs would have an option for him in 26. He fills in for Nico now. He is similar to the players he would be mixing with. So playing 140 games works for him. And he is on a team who is known to trade guys around this time. If the Cubs did make a trade for one of the Seattle starters or Crochet, there is plenty of money to add a $10M bat. Honestly they would still have enough money to add someone like Tanner Scott for the pen, keep Tauchman as the 5th outfielders and add a catcher by trade or free agency. All that would be left is picking up a right handed bat for the bench and maybe another pen arm. 
depending on how aggressive Jed wants to be with prospect trades he could deal for Langeliers and get a catcher cheap too. Which, even keeping Tauchman and spending big on the pen arm, he would have roughly $20M for a right handed bench bat and maybe another pen arm. Even if my numbers are of some and they don’t have $20M, we are talking about adding the last bat on the team and maybe a pen arm. There would be enough money for that. We are also talking about adding Scott. They could cut some cost there too and get a different lefty for less. Point is, if they do fill the rotation with a cheaper, young, controlled starting pitcher via trade they do have money to use to add aggressively elsewhere. I agree that most likely this doesn’t happen. All I am trying to show is that with something like this you can play 9 guys at 8 positions effectively. You don’t need a set line up for 155-160 games a year. 

If we're playing the 'what would Jed do/not do based on my pre-conceived notions of how he operates a team', then Jed's quote, literally this week, about not expecting a 'ripple effect' from Hoerner's injury and how he expects a 'full recovery' would seem to rule out getting a substantial middle infielder.

If we're playing 'how do we improve the team', give me the guy with the Juan Soto wRC last year (AKA the guy that out-performed anyone on our offense besides Swanson, fWAR-wise, in only 78 games). I don't know how you say he's too expensive and then talk about leaving $20m for another bench bat and a reliever in the Lowe path. I don't want to spend $20m on the 11th guy and a reliver. Tucker's projected arbitration salary is $16m. Worrying about costing too much in minor league assets (incrementally over getting two years of Brandon Lowe) and then also wanting to add Lowe AND another free agent bat to make it even more unlikely the minor league assets will see Wrigley in 2025 doesn't make sense to me either. Go get Tucker and make Caissie or Shaw or Alcantara or whatever your bench bat, elite offense acquired, salary problem solved. 

Shea Langeliers? He somehow added negative defensive value catching last year, and here's a blind slash line comparison. One of them is the guy we should be trading prospects for and what he did in 2024, and the other one is the career line of our backup third baseman who everyone has wanted taken out back and shot for the last 4 months.

• Player A: .209/.291/.459
• Player B: .224/.288/.450

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

If we're playing the 'what would Jed do/not do based on my pre-conceived notions of how he operates a team', then Jed's quote, literally this week, about not expecting a 'ripple effect' from Hoerner's injury and how he expects a 'full recovery' would seem to rule out getting a substantial middle infielder.

If we're playing 'how do we improve the team', give me the guy with the Juan Soto wRC last year (AKA the guy that out-performed anyone on our offense besides Swanson, fWAR-wise, in only 78 games). I don't know how you say he's too expensive and then talk about leaving $20m for another bench bat and a reliever in the Lowe path. I don't want to spend $20m on the 11th guy and a reliver. Tucker's projected arbitration salary is $16m. Worrying about costing too much in minor league assets (incrementally over getting two years of Brandon Lowe) and then also wanting to add Lowe AND another free agent bat to make it even more unlikely the minor league assets will see Wrigley in 2025 doesn't make sense to me either. Go get Tucker and make Caissie or Shaw or Alcantara or whatever your bench bat, elite offense acquired, salary problem solved. 

Shea Langeliers? He somehow added negative defensive value catching last year, and here's a blind slash line comparison. One of them is the guy we should be trading prospects for and what he did in 2024, and the other one is the career line of our backup third baseman who everyone has wanted taken out back and shot for the last 4 months.

• Player A: .209/.291/.459
• Player B: .224/.288/.450

I would love Tucker. But while some do project what they think Jed would do, based on his past, you tend to ignore it, all together, and act like NOW he will start being aggressive. As for Langeliers, he is just an option. Could be O’Hoppe, could be a guy that splits time with Amaya. Langiers does add power to the team, however. As for the last bat, you mentioned filling it from within, which is fine. But the Cubs can do that with a Lowe trade as well. Really all I was trying to do was show thawv how they can add another bat and still have money to add elsewhere. He already suggested not seeing how it could be done with Tucker. That is why I used Lowe. As I said, I love Tucker. I just see that far less likely. Yes, they can do it with him, but IMO he is far less likely an option. 

[CubinNY]

I read a post on Brett's website that said Caissie is a hot name on the trade front. I don't know what that means. 

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I read a post on Brett's website that said Caissie is a hot name on the trade front. I don't know what that means. 

Its from Jon Morosi. He tweeted it yesterday. It sounds more (from my reading) that teams are interested in Caissie as a return in trade talks. For who? Not sure. How amenable are the Cubs? Unsure. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I read a post on Brett's website that said Caissie is a hot name on the trade front. I don't know what that means. 

They realize he's gonna be ready this year and without injury to a starter likely won't get much playing time, and they don't want to add salary purely via FA. We probably should be looking to move him for pitching. Our young pitchers all died last year,

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Its from Jon Morosi. He tweeted it yesterday. It sounds more (from my reading) that teams are interested in Caissie as a return in trade talks. For who? Not sure. How amenable are the Cubs? Unsure. 

Honestly, for me, everyone is available. I am not suggesting depleting the system. I am saying there is no one guy I know of that I feel strong enough to have to keep. The Cubs might have one, and I understand that. I just don’t know enough about the way the Cubs view any particular prospect and I am not a scout or deep into the team to have a strong opinion of any one prospect. I just know this is a good year to trade some of those assets for proven talent. I don’t expect their value to be higher than it is now. And now is also the time where adding a proven major league talent via trade should be used as a tool to get this team from an 83 win team to a 90+ win team. Not the only tool. But at least a part of the plan. 

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

They realize he's gonna be ready this year and without injury to a starter likely won't get much playing time, and they don't want to add salary purely via FA. We probably should be looking to move him for pitching. 

Agreed. Add a young pitcher by using some minor league talent. Then they still have a good chuck of money to add other needs. 

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

They realize he's gonna be ready this year and without injury to a starter likely won't get much playing time, and they don't want to add salary purely via FA. We probably should be looking to move him for pitching. Our young pitchers all died last year,

I think we should be looking to move someone for pitching, but I'm not convinced it has to be/should be Caissie, either. I almost think of it as the Cubs kind of need to hitch their wagon to an OF'er and an INF'er moreso than it having to be Caissie. Especially with Bellinger in the fold for the current season, an injury to an OF'er would allow Caissie an immediate path to the MLB because if it's a corner, then he can man-it, or if it's CF, then Bellinger slides over. The same is probably true at 1b, with Bellinger moving there and Caissie to RF/DH.

Overall, with Bellinger, Happ, and Suzuki, I think we should expect at least some IL trips. 

No problem if you're more of an Alcantara guy. Just about the same can be said for him that I did above. Why I think the Cubs kind of need to pick one right now. They need immediate MLB help, and picking one and using the other in a trade is probably the way to go. Can probably run the same conversation for Triantos and Shaw, too.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

7 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think we should be looking to move someone for pitching, but I'm not convinced it has to be/should be Caissie, either. I almost think of it as the Cubs kind of need to hitch their wagon to an OF'er and an INF'er moreso than it having to be Caissie. Especially with Bellinger in the fold for the current season, an injury to an OF'er would allow Caissie an immediate path to the MLB because if it's a corner, then he can man-it, or if it's CF, then Bellinger slides over. The same is probably true at 1b, with Bellinger moving there and Caissie to RF/DH.

Overall, with Bellinger, Happ, and Suzuki, I think we should expect at least some IL trips. 

No problem if you're more of an Alcantara guy. Just about the same can be said for him that I did above. Why I think the Cubs kind of need to pick one right now. They need immediate MLB help, and picking one and using the other in a trade is probably the way to go. Can probably run the same conversation for Triantos and Shaw, too.

I think the one complicating factor with this thinking is it's unclear how long Caissie can be a viable MLB OF defensively, if he even is one today.  I know the reports were that he showed some good signs last year so maybe he can do it through pre-arb at least, but with that frame and what we know of his tools I think if you're making a multi-year 'this is the OF' choice, it has to be in the back of your head that Caissie is a 1B/DH in a decent percentage of possible outcomes.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think the one complicating factor with this thinking is it's unclear how long Caissie can be a viable MLB OF defensively, if he even is one today.  I know the reports were that he showed some good signs last year so maybe he can do it through pre-arb at least, but with that frame and what we know of his tools I think if you're making a multi-year 'this is the OF' choice, it has to be in the back of your head that Caissie is a 1B/DH in a decent percentage of possible outcomes.

I think there's some of that. I do think the whole "Caissie can't play OF long term" thing gets a little overblown. Even if we look back at the time of the draft, there was belief he could handle CF for a time because he was quite athletic for his size. Looking at reports, it's been pretty positive over the years. He's looked better in routes. He's got a true 60 grade arm...so while I get the fears that he might move off of the OF position, I'm not sure it's as imminent as many make it out to be. I think there's a decent chance he's a viable OF'er through most of his arb years, for example. He's tall but has really yet to become anything near bulky. And the power seems to be coming with swing changes - his ISO, and LA skyrocketed in the 2nd half last year and resulted in the HR power we were kind of waiting on (there was a decline in contact%, but that's another story). 

I've always been on the high end of the Caissie talk. So I've got some biases here. But I think there's a an OF'er through age 25 or 26 there. 

[Bertz]

Part of the problem with Caissie is that while he's the most clearly blocked right now, we have essentially zero LHH power behind him in the system.  Like there's nothing at Tenn, at SB I guess you could hope on Edgar Alvarez going all Johnny Long on us next year, and then Ramon or Escobar at Myrtle?

It's not enough that you can flat refuse to move him, but I do think that moving Alcantara would be preferable.  Triantos has gotten favorable reviews in limited time in center, and with his contact/speed combo and ability to at least nominally play the infield more naturally slides into a reserve role.

[squally1313]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I would love Tucker. But while some do project what they think Jed would do, based on his past, you tend to ignore it, all together, and act like NOW he will start being aggressive. As for Langeliers, he is just an option. Could be O’Hoppe, could be a guy that splits time with Amaya. Langiers does add power to the team, however. As for the last bat, you mentioned filling it from within, which is fine. But the Cubs can do that with a Lowe trade as well. Really all I was trying to do was show thawv how they can add another bat and still have money to add elsewhere. He already suggested not seeing how it could be done with Tucker. That is why I used Lowe. As I said, I love Tucker. I just see that far less likely. Yes, they can do it with him, but IMO he is far less likely an option. 

I just don't see this huge step up in aggressiveness between trading for a quality starting second baseman on a cheap contract for two years vs an elite outfielder on a $16m contract for one year. Like, trading for Brandon Lowe is pretty aggressive already right? I don't even know if the prospect ask would be substantially different. I'm more interested in filling the first bat than I am the last bat, and if it means living and dying with Amaya and the 2024 veteran catcher du jour, so be it.