General Offseason Priorities

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

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. 

That’s fair. But you do have to factor in the team they would be trading with, too. I think TB is far more likely to trade Lowe than Houston is to trade Tucker. And as I said, I was responding to thawv when I wrote what I wrote. And he already eliminated Tucker. Tucker would obviously be a bigger upgrade. But keeping him around would be a huge financial commitment, after 25. Lowe, not nearly as much. 

[Jason Ross]

13 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

That’s fair. But you do have to factor in the team they would be trading with, too. I think TB is far more likely to trade Lowe than Houston is to trade Tucker. And as I said, I was responding to thawv when I wrote what I wrote. And he already eliminated Tucker. Tucker would obviously be a bigger upgrade. But keeping him around would be a huge financial commitment, after 25. Lowe, not nearly as much. 

How available Kyle Tucker is this offseason is debatable, but I think there's a good chance he's quite available. A lot of that depends on the Astros, though. If they expect to lose Bregman this year, and expect there's a good chance they lose Tucker next year, they may decide it's best to take a temporary step back in 2025 for a reset and young-player acquisition. In that even, I'd expect Kyle Tucker to be quite available. 

Ultimately, I think the smoke around the Cubs, and from the Cubs themselves, is that they are pretty set at the position player side of things. Maybe that's a screen, but the Cubs under Hoyer and previously under Theo, rarely screen. They move quietly without many leaks, but rarely smokescreen. I think they probably won't go big on offense, which probably rules out Tucker. Regardless, I wish they'd continue to explore it.

[squally1313]

14 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

That’s fair. But you do have to factor in the team they would be trading with, too. I think TB is far more likely to trade Lowe than Houston is to trade Tucker. And as I said, I was responding to thawv when I wrote what I wrote. And he already eliminated Tucker. Tucker would obviously be a bigger upgrade. But keeping him around would be a huge financial commitment, after 25. Lowe, not nearly as much. 

Eh. Everyone wants Soto but doesn't want the guy who hit like Soto last year. Outside of 2026 specifically, we have more than enough money for a long term Tucker extension. I know Jed's never done it, but he's had like 3 offseasons. Every time Lowe starts in the middle infield or third, he'd be taking the place of a better player. I'd be fine adding him, but 'Tucker is too pricey so instead how about Brandon Lowe and a reliever' is laughable. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

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. 

I think there would be a pretty dramatic difference.  Lowe is a 2-3 win IF/OF who has had persistent injuries that led to him reaching 110 games once, he's on 1/10.5 + 11.5 option.  Tucker (while he was hurt last year) hasn't had recurring injuries, has consistently been a 5+ win OF, and is on ~1/16 before FA (plus comp pick).  Just using BBTV as a semi-objective benchmark, Tucker's cost is roughly Lowe's cost plus an Alcantara.

[Stratos]

6 hours 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. 

Jed isn't going to empty out the farm for Lowe and Crochet.  Maybe 1 player like that but not 2.

[Stratos]

5 hours 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. 

I think Morosi just dropped a random name per usual and is speculating. 

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I think Morosi just dropped a random name per usual and is speculating. 

Morosi can be iffy, certainly. I also don't think Jon was just bored yesterday and randomly dropped Owen Caissie as a name. Bruce Levine reported the Cubs and Mariners had some sort of discussion. I would assume that Morosi isn't just making horsefeathers up and that the name Owen Caissie came up in some context. Did the Cubs offer him? Was it a team (or team's) speculation? No clue. 

I don't think there's anything imminent. 

[Stratos]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Morosi can be iffy, certainly. I also don't think Jon was just bored yesterday and randomly dropped Owen Caissie as a name. Bruce Levine reported the Cubs and Mariners had some sort of discussion. I would assume that Morosi isn't just making horsefeathers up and that the name Owen Caissie came up in some context. Did the Cubs offer him? Was it a team (or team's) speculation? No clue. 

I don't think there's anything imminent. 

Well Morosi does this stuff all the time and just drops names he speculated on, that's why I say this.   But are it could be based on actual interest, though he'd probably mention a team if he knew.  Who knows

[Bertz]

One thing I just realized: whether intentional or not the Cubs' offseason does not necessarily need to run through Scott Boras. 

Burnes, Snell, and Kikuchi are Boras clients, but the rest of the prominent SPs including Fried aren't.  Bellinger opting in means the team isn't playing in the waters of guys like Pete Alonso.  Bregman went out the windows with the Paredes trade.

Like I don't know the agent of every reliever and bench guy, but Kikuchi and maybe Tyler O'neill are the only guys that feel like potential Jed targets, are Boras clients, and are slated to make enough money to be subject to potentially be part of any shenanigans.

[Rcal10]

20 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Well Morosi does this stuff all the time and just drops names he speculated on, that's why I say this.   But are it could be based on actual interest, though he'd probably mention a team if he knew.  Who knows

I doubt Morosi is just making stuff up. I am sure what he says is something he heard. The problem is that doesn’t mean a trade is imminent. And then when nothing happens you have people suggesting he made stuff up. I would guess 90% of what is talked about doesn’t happen. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed. Doesn’t not mean Morosi or any other reporter was just throwing horsefeathers against the wall. 

[Rob]

I'm wondering if the Cubs should be looking spending some of their funds on extensions this season.

This may be the last chance to get PCA "cheaply." He struggled so badly in the first half of the season, but showcased skills that could make him a perennial 4+ fWAR player going forward if he's truly figured it out.

Likewise, one of Alcantara/Caissie probably needs to go in a trade. So why not put team-friendly extensions in front of both of them and ship off the one who doesn't sign?

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, Rob said:

I'm wondering if the Cubs should be looking spending some of their funds on extensions this season.

This may be the last chance to get PCA "cheaply." He struggled so badly in the first half of the season, but showcased skills that could make him a perennial 4+ fWAR player going forward if he's truly figured it out.

Likewise, one of Alcantara/Caissie probably needs to go in a trade. So why not put team-friendly extensions in front of both of them and ship off the one who doesn't sign?

In addition to the kids, I think there's some argument for doing one of Happ or Suzuki.

One of the medium term concerns with this roster is the cliff after 2026.  Right now Hoerner, Happ, Suzuki, Taillon and, if he doesn't opt out next winter Bellinger, all become FAs.  Plus several of the bench/bullpen types.  That's a lot of talent to see head out the door all at once. 

I wonder if you could do a minor extension with Happ or Suzuki.  Something like guarantee salary for '27 while adding a club option for '28?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The thing that makes me wary of any extensions is that the team currently isn't losing any meaningful dollars off the payroll after this year.  Any 1 year deals would potentially fit in that category, and Bellinger has an opt out again, but at least a small part of the planning for this offseason has to be mindful of that to avoid painting yourself into a corner.  Extensions work against this because it's very likely that any extension candidates would raise their AAV/CBT value.  Maybe if you wanted to be like 'Ian Happ do you want to be a Cub for life' and offer him 6/110 or something you could pull it off(not my favorite idea!), but any young guys by definition will increase in AAV.

[jersey cubs fan]

Coming from his socioeconomic background I doubt PCA would be interested in a team friendly extension, and I can’t think of another guy who has earned one 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

I doubt Morosi is just making stuff up. I am sure what he says is something he heard. The problem is that doesn’t mean a trade is imminent. And then when nothing happens you have people suggesting he made stuff up. I would guess 90% of what is talked about doesn’t happen. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed. Doesn’t not mean Morosi or any other reporter was just throwing horsefeathers against the wall. 

Morosi literally speculates on names all the time.  He 100% throws names out there and people run with it.  He did it at the trade deadline last year.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Stratos

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

In addition to the kids, I think there's some argument for doing one of Happ or Suzuki.

One of the medium term concerns with this roster is the cliff after 2026.  Right now Hoerner, Happ, Suzuki, Taillon and, if he doesn't opt out next winter Bellinger, all become FAs.  Plus several of the bench/bullpen types.  That's a lot of talent to see head out the door all at once. 

I wonder if you could do a minor extension with Happ or Suzuki.  Something like guarantee salary for '27 while adding a club option for '28?

I think they should trade Happ and Suzuki before they become FA and replace them with one or both of Alcantara/Caissie or maybe another FA in his prime or via trade.  I'd want as many players on this team to be under age 33 as possible.  Plus its a chance to add surplus via pre-arb players and reload the farm.

The Happ and Suzuki contracts right now are perfect, we get good players through their prime years and get to trade them for value at their peak before they age regress.

If we had a quality player in LF or RF right now making pre-arb or even arb money we could afford e.g. Blake Snell and Max Fried in the rotation instead of Blake Snell and Taillon.  If we had 3 pre-arb players in the OF and they were good (PCA, Alcantara, Cassie) we could afford the above starters and a lights-out bullpen, or any other upgrades we wanted.

If Caissie or Alcantara don't work out then you just sign another FA OF (a good corner OF is virtually always available in FA) and you still have a healthy farm from trading Suzuki and/or Happ.

If Jed fundamentally doesn't like something about Caissie or Alcantara that may prevent them from succeeding in the MLB then sure trade them.

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 hour ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Coming from his socioeconomic background I doubt PCA would be interested in a team friendly extension, and I can’t think of another guy who has earned one 

Couldn't hurt to make an offer as long as it isn't like an Ozzie Albies proposal. Although TT is right in that the AAV becomes a concern pretty quickly. 

[Rcal10]

20 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I think they should trade Happ and Suzuki before they become FA and replace them with one or both of Alcantara/Caissie or maybe another FA in his prime or via trade.  I'd want as many players on this team to be under age 33 as possible.  Plus its a chance to add surplus via pre-arb players and reload the farm.

The Happ and Suzuki contracts right now are perfect, we get good players through their prime years and get to trade them for value at their peak before they age regress.

If we had a quality player in LF or RF right now making pre-arb or even arb money we could afford e.g. Blake Snell and Max Fried in the rotation instead of Blake Snell and Taillon.  If we had 3 pre-arb players in the OF and they were good (PCA, Alcantara, Cassie) we could afford the above starters and a lights-out bullpen, or any other upgrades we wanted.

If Caissie or Alcantara don't work out then you just sign another FA OF (a good corner OF is virtually always available in FA) and you still have a healthy farm from trading Suzuki and/or Happ.

If Jed fundamentally doesn't like something about Caissie or Alcantara that may prevent them from succeeding in the MLB then sure trade them.

So your plan is to bring players along until they are good and then trade them and replace them with prospects who may or may not be good. Probably will not be good for at least a few years, if ever.  And then once they get good I assume you trade them too? And the reason to do this is to cut payroll so you can add quality players as free agents. The problem with that is usually you pay for past performance with free agents and actually overpay. The other problem with that is you are signing free agentd onto a bad team. So maybe you take a 70-75 win team with Cassie and Alcantara in the outfield and by adding a few decent free agents turning it into 77-83 win team. Your plan is what small market teams have to do. And sometimes they get lucky and hit on young talent. It isn’t something the Cubs should do, IMO. 
I just feel this plan is a plan to constantly kick the can down the road to becoming a good team. You put way too much faith in young talent. Happ and Suzuki are not easily replaced. 

[Stratos]

41 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So your plan is to bring players along until they are good and then trade them and replace them with prospects who may or may not be good. Probably will not be good for at least a few years, if ever.  And then once they get good I assume you trade them too? And the reason to do this is to cut payroll so you can add quality players as free agents. The problem with that is usually you pay for past performance with free agents and actually overpay. The other problem with that is you are signing free agentd onto a bad team. So maybe you take a 70-75 win team with Cassie and Alcantara in the outfield and by adding a few decent free agents turning it into 77-83 win team. Your plan is what small market teams have to do. And sometimes they get lucky and hit on young talent. It isn’t something the Cubs should do, IMO. 
I just feel this plan is a plan to constantly kick the can down the road to becoming a good team. You put way too much faith in young talent. Happ and Suzuki are not easily replaced. 

How did they know Happ was going to be a good player when he was in AAA?  How did they know Suzuki or Imanaga were going to be good players when they were in Japan?  If the Cubs think a prospect is talented and has a good chance to succeed in the MLB then take a risk and play them.  They're taking a risk on PCA right now.  They took a risk on Busch and Amaya.

The Cubs went with good young talent like Baez, Contreras, Russell, Hendricks etc, with no guarantees they'd be good, added a few good trades and then went into FA and got good players like Zobrist, Lester, Fowler, Heyward, Lackey etc and won a WS.  That's not what a small market team does.

If the Cubs aren't going to spend 280m on payroll then they need some surplus via some good cheap talent to afford guys who are better than Taillon, Hendricks, Barnhart etc

Quote

And then once they get good I assume you trade them too? And the reason to do this is to cut payroll so you can add quality players as free agents. The problem with that is usually you pay for past performance with free agents and actually overpay.

No you keep good young players until just before they hit FA or extend them if you can.  Happ and Suzuki aren't going to sign 1 or 2 year extensions, they'd rather hit FA because they'll want more years.  You're also paying for past performance with a new Happ/Suzuki extension since they're in their primes now but they'll be 32 when a new extension is signed and will probably want FA-type deals in the 3-4 year range.  Too old IMO.

If the Cubs want to trade one of Caissie or Alcantara for a guy like Crochet (who btw has had only 1 good full season as a SP and has been seriously hurt) that's fine.  Emptying the farm for 1 year of Vladdy or Tucker isn't wise IMO and neither is extending Happ or Suzuki based on what they'll want at that age.

I'd much rather take a risk on a young prospect than an expensive older player contract.

[Rcal10]

11 hours ago, Stratos said:

How did they know Happ was going to be a good player when he was in AAA?  How did they know Suzuki or Imanaga were going to be good players when they were in Japan?  If the Cubs think a prospect is talented and has a good chance to succeed in the MLB then take a risk and play them.  They're taking a risk on PCA right now.  They took a risk on Busch and Amaya.

The Cubs went with good young talent like Baez, Contreras, Russell, Hendricks etc, with no guarantees they'd be good, added a few good trades and then went into FA and got good players like Zobrist, Lester, Fowler, Heyward, Lackey etc and won a WS.  That's not what a small market team does.

If the Cubs aren't going to spend 280m on payroll then they need some surplus via some good cheap talent to afford guys who are better than Taillon, Hendricks, Barnhart etc

No you keep good young players until just before they hit FA or extend them if you can.  Happ and Suzuki aren't going to sign 1 or 2 year extensions, they'd rather hit FA because they'll want more years.  You're also paying for past performance with a new Happ/Suzuki extension since they're in their primes now but they'll be 32 when a new extension is signed and will probably want FA-type deals in the 3-4 year range.  Too old IMO.

If the Cubs want to trade one of Caissie or Alcantara for a guy like Crochet (who btw has had only 1 good full season as a SP and has been seriously hurt) that's fine.  Emptying the farm for 1 year of Vladdy or Tucker isn't wise IMO and neither is extending Happ or Suzuki based on what they'll want at that age.

I'd much rather take a risk on a young prospect than an expensive older player contract.

I get your plan. I just think too often people suggest trading good players and replacing them with minor league players and assume that minor league player is going to be successful instantly. And that that player will be every bit as good as the guy he replaced at a 1st year salary. Replacing guys like Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner, and even Parades with Alcantara, Cassie, Shaw and Triantos would turn this team into a 70 win team. And I realize you aren’t suggesting trading all of those guys. This is just an extreme example. IMO the Cubs are pretty close to being that 90 win team they are shooting for. Replacing Hendricks with a solid starter, having Paredes and PCA all year, adding  solid catcher, a pen arm or two and maybe strengthening the bench get them to a 90 win team. Between prospects and money they can spend, they can do all of that. For me, rather than trading Happ or Suzuki(who both have NTC anyway) and replacing them with a prospect, use those prospects to bring back someone like one of the Seattle pitchers or Crochet. Maybe a solid starting catcher. Maybe a solid left handed hitting bat who can play the infield. Maybe a bench bat or pen arm. Not all of those things via trade. Don’t trade all the minor league talent. Keep some to hopefully take over in a year or two. But they can use 3 or 4 of their top 10 prospects along with a few more between 11-30 to add a few solid pieces via trade. That plus spending on a few guys through FA and using the minor league talent they keep to filter into the majors could make this a very good team and still have talent to replace guys in a few years. 

[BigbadB]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I get your plan. I just think too often people suggest trading good players and replacing them with minor league players and assume that minor league player is going to be successful instantly. And that that player will be every bit as good as the guy he replaced at a 1st year salary. Replacing guys like Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner, and even Parades with Alcantara, Cassie, Shaw and Triantos would turn this team into a 70 win team. And I realize you aren’t suggesting trading all of those guys. This is just an extreme example. IMO the Cubs are pretty close to being that 90 win team they are shooting for. Replacing Hendricks with a solid starter, having Paredes and PCA all year, adding  solid catcher, a pen arm or two and maybe strengthening the bench get them to a 90 win team. Between prospects and money they can spend, they can do all of that. For me, rather than trading Happ or Suzuki(who both have NTC anyway) and replacing them with a prospect, use those prospects to bring back someone like one of the Seattle pitchers or Crochet. Maybe a solid starting catcher. Maybe a solid left handed hitting bat who can play the infield. Maybe a bench bat or pen arm. Not all of those things via trade. Don’t trade all the minor league talent. Keep some to hopefully take over in a year or two. But they can use 3 or 4 of their top 10 prospects along with a few more between 11-30 to add a few solid pieces via trade. That plus spending on a few guys through FA and using the minor league talent they keep to filter into the majors could make this a very good team and still have talent to replace guys in a few years. 

I think the OP's expectation is that guys exiting their primes aren't the best people to be offering extensions to. This is exactly how the Cubs keep missing out on big name free agents. The earmarked money for a guy in decline is now eating from the money pool that could go to a Soto type FA. Maybe you keep one of them, but probably not both. IF there is no window for a big name FA, maybe you just run with what you have, but as is hasn't been good enough for a playoff run. More of the same isn't ideal.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, BigbadB said:

I think the OP's expectation is that guys exiting their primes aren't the best people to be offering extensions to. This is exactly how the Cubs keep missing out on big name free agents. The earmarked money for a guy in decline is now eating from the money pool that could go to a Soto type FA. Maybe you keep one of them, but probably not both. IF there is no window for a big name FA, maybe you just run with what you have, but as is hasn't been good enough for a playoff run. More of the same isn't ideal.

Three things here. First, I am not talking about extending anyone. Honestly haven’t even thought of that and never talked about it. I am talking about not trading major league talent and replacing it with minor league talent this off season. I don’t think you just trade Happ or Suzuki and assume a minor leaguer will fill in for them and be just as good. 
Second, I agree that more of the same is not ideal. But even bringing back the 9 guys who played most games at the end of the year is not more of the same from MOST of 23’. This year they have Parades and PCA all year. They have  a more established Busch. Those 9 guys, when playing together won at a 90 win pace. I know, small sample. I also agree with that. But that is why you get a front line starting pitcher to replace Hendricks starts. You improve the pen. They bring in another catcher to either share time with Amaya, or take over the job. They add a solid utility/ semi regular infielder who bats left handed and strengthen the bench. That takes an 83 win team to a 90+ win team. Maybe add a right handed bat better than Wisdom to the bench. Between prospects and money they can spend there is no reason they can’t add enough through trades and FA to be that team. IMO now is not the time to get rid of good players and replace them with minor leaguers. That is all I am saying. 
And finally, the Cubs aren’t missing out on big name free agents because they have other guys signed already. They are missing out because the FO and ownerships philosophy of building  a team does not include giving guys a contract of more than 7 years. Big time FA want to be paid until their later 30’s to even early 40’s. 

Edited November 8, 2024 by Rcal10

[Cuzi]

Trade any and all prospects. The end. The only one I would think twice about is Shaw and that's only because I'm not against trading Hoerner to inject more offense into the lineup.

Using the 2015 Cubs as reason for not trading prospects is beyond foolish. For one, those prospects were better. And two, the Cubs got extremely fortunate that they all produced at the same time. It did take Rizzo and Baez multiple years to become Rizzo and Baez, however.

[Rcal10]

54 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Trade any and all prospects. The end. The only one I would think twice about is Shaw and that's only because I'm not against trading Hoerner to inject more offense into the lineup.

Using the 2015 Cubs as reason for not trading prospects is beyond foolish. For one, those prospects were better. And two, the Cubs got extremely fortunate that they all produced at the same time. It did take Rizzo and Baez multiple years to become Rizzo and Baez, however.

I am not quite on the trade all prospects bus, but I do agree they should be trading prospects for major league talent. And I also agree using the 2015-2016 team as an example of why you keep prospects is foolish. I am sure we can find many examples of it not working like that. You don’t keep prospects because 1 time it worked not trading them versus 15-20 times it doesn’t work. 

[Cuzi]

20 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I am not quite on the trade all prospects bus, but I do agree they should be trading prospects for major league talent. And I also agree using the 2015-2016 team as an example of why you keep prospects is foolish. I am sure we can find many examples of it not working like that. You don’t keep prospects because 1 time it worked not trading them versus 15-20 times it doesn’t work. 

The 15-20 times it doesn't work is why I say trade any and all prospects. Especially given the make up of the roster. This roster is set for at least 2 years. Since the Cubs are already ruling out Soto, when even a team like the Rays at least called Boras, then trade these damn prospects and make a better team. You have to be confident you can find new prospects to build up because there's not a damn one of them that's going to be making an impact on the MLB roster any time soon without trading a starter which the Cubs equally aren't interested in.

Edited November 8, 2024 by Cuzi