Non-Soto FA thread

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, chibears55 said:

It belongs in the trash can, this would be the dumbest thing they'd do..

Yup this is the dumbest rule change I've ever heard.  People suggesting it are morons.

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I don't dislike Boyd the player, I dislike the contract.  He's not good enough to be our #1 SP acquisition this winter and not cheap enough to be our 2nd SP.  Even regardless, the contract isn't good.

Also, Snell got $180m because the Dodgers deferred some of that contract, in today money he's making around 160m, which is still a tad high for a guy who misses as many starts as he does, but I guess the Dodgers FO has the luxury of throwing money around like candy.

But you are ok at 2/$24M. I guess that is what I don’t get. Does the $2.5M a year difference make that big a difference beteeen liking the Cubs getting a guy or not? How is one a fine contract and the other an overpay to the level of you disliking it so much. Also, what if the Cubs traded for a cheaper controlled pitcher to pitch in the top/middle of the rotation? Would that then make the extra $2.5M they are spending on him ok with you? 

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Yup this is the dumbest rule change I've ever heard.  People suggesting it are morons.

Manfred suggested it. But I agree it is really stupid. 

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

I don't dislike Boyd the player, I dislike the contract.  He's not good enough to be our #1 SP acquisition this winter and not cheap enough to be our 2nd SP.  Even regardless, the contract isn't good.

Also, Snell got $180m because the Dodgers deferred some of that contract, in today money he's making around 160m, which is still a tad high for a guy who misses as many starts as he does, but I guess the Dodgers FO has the luxury of throwing money around like candy.

Youre making far too big of a deal on the contract. It's two years. $14.5 AAV. I mean, how cheap do you think the Cubs can get a good SP? $9m? $10m? Who's getting those AAVs? Even so, it's like one low end BP arm. Who cares? It's not big enough of a difference to *really* care that much about. 

And yes, I agree, the Cubs can't make him the best acquisition. It's December 3rd. The WMs are next week. It's not worth worrying about that yet. When it's late Feb, we can worry about that and cycle back. I'm pretty sure we won't have to, which is kind of my point. 

I get it, this is a gamble. But it's not a back breaking gamble as long as the Cubs aren't done right now doing more (and reality is that the only thing that suggests the Cubs are done for the offseason are people's own fears and worries grounded in nothing other than anxiety).

[chibears55]

Anyone think the Cubs would try to bid for  Hyeseong Kim tomorrow?

[Stratos]

How much do the Cubs have left to spend under the tax cap after the Boyd signing?  Did someone here mention about 40m? With the guess that they'll probably leave about 8 - 10m in space so around 30m left?

30m would be enough for a FA catcher, one of the better pen arms, and about 7m left for other needs (another reliever or SP, maybe a bench bat).

[Tank]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

I don't dislike Boyd the player, I dislike the contract.  He's not good enough to be our #1 SP acquisition this winter and not cheap enough to be our 2nd SP.  Even regardless, the contract isn't good.

Also, Snell got $180m because the Dodgers deferred some of that contract, in today money he's making around 160m, which is still a tad high for a guy who misses as many starts as he does, but I guess the Dodgers FO has the luxury of throwing money around like candy.

If the Cubs can't gamble with $29 million they have far bigger problems than gambling $29 million.

[thawv]

4 hours ago, Stratos said:

How much do the Cubs have left to spend under the tax cap after the Boyd signing?  Did someone here mention about 40m? With the guess that they'll probably leave about 8 - 10m in space so around 30m left?

30m would be enough for a FA catcher, one of the better pen arms, and about 7m left for other needs (another reliever or SP, maybe a bench bat).

Cot's has them as 47.8 under the first level.  As discussed on here, they will leave money in their pocket for injury payroll and deadline moves.  So maybe they have another 38-40 million to spend this off season? 

[LBiittner]

Can we believe Jon Morosi?

Cubs are in on a Garrett Crochet?

Let's play Goldilocks: how much is too much to give? And how much is jussst right?

Trivia question? When was the last time cubs had 4 leftys in the rotation, if ever?

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

Can we believe Jon Morosi?

Cubs are in on a Garrett Crochet?

Let's play Goldilocks: how much is too much to give? And how much is jussst right?

Trivia question? When was the last time cubs had 4 leftys in the rotation, if ever?

His tweet feels more speculatively than it does report-y but that's just my read. Kind of like "If the White Sox trade Crochet, the Cubs and Reds have prospects!" type thing. And every year Morosi, especially, seems to be on the "hype the Cub rumor" train more-so than others. So this could be our typical short-lived rumor excitement. 

With that said I think Crotchet is an interesting add and someone the Cubs should highly consider, LHP be damned. He's a bang-on TORP and the Cubs need that. He would play nicely with the depth the Cubs have, as you kind of assume he'll come in around the 150-170 IP range, so with Boyd, the Cubs could use their considerable depth to help those two out. 

[BigbadB]

3 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

Can we believe Jon Morosi?

Cubs are in on a Garrett Crochet?

Let's play Goldilocks: how much is too much to give? And how much is jussst right?

Trivia question? When was the last time cubs had 4 leftys in the rotation, if ever?

I feel like they had 4 lefty guys in the rotation at the same time after some injuries in the late '00's. Felt like it might have been the Sean Marshall, Ted Lilly and Rich Hill era. Maybe I'm wrong.

[CubinNY]

43 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

I feel like they had 4 lefty guys in the rotation at the same time after some injuries in the late '00's. Felt like it might have been the Sean Marshall, Ted Lilly and Rich Hill era. Maybe I'm wrong.

I guess Wicks would go into the trade with Shaw, Big Mo, and maybe Horton. The White Sox will be looking for a haul. 

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I guess Wicks would go into the trade with Shaw, Big Mo, and maybe Horton. The White Sox will be looking for a haul. 

For Crochet? Way too much. There is no way they get 3 top 60 prospects close to the majors and a starting pitcher for him. Maybe one of those guys and a younger prospect for him. Maybe add Wicks too. But they are not getting 3 top guys. They can be looking for a haul all they want. Doesn’t mean they get that sort of deal for him. 

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

For Crochet? Way too much. There is no way they get 3 top 60 prospects close to the majors and a starting pitcher for him. Maybe one of those guys and a younger prospect for him. Maybe add Wicks too. But they are not getting 3 top guys. They can be looking for a haul all they want. Doesn’t mean they get that sort of deal for him. 

lol, ok

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

lol, ok

They are said to want younger talent anyway. Lower level. Maybe read some of the suggestions 1908 is giving in another thread. That makes more sense than what you are suggesting. Let’s see what the Sox  get for Crochet before you lol. It will not be 3 top 60 prospects all with Mlb target dates of 2025 and a starting pitcher. 

[Derwood]

I've been on this board for a million years and some posters consistently over-value players in trades. The number of times people have speculated that it would take 5-6 minor leaguers to get one 30-year-old pitcher is...a lot

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, Derwood said:

I've been on this board for a million years and some posters consistently over-value players in trades. The number of times people have speculated that it would take 5-6 minor leaguers to get one 30-year-old pitcher is...a lot

He's 25.

Edited December 4, 2024 by CubinNY

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Crochet discussion here

 

[Derwood]

13 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

He's 25.

Yes, and he’s still not worth three top 60 prospects. 

Edited December 4, 2024 by Derwood

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Derwood said:

Yes, and he’s still not worth three top 60 prospects. 

You don't even know who he is.

[Rcal10]

34 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Yes, and he’s still not worth three top 60 prospects. 

Kind of reminds me of last year and Robert. So many posts of the Sox wanting  super prospects for him. 3 top 50-75 prospects. See what happened then. Nothing. Sox didn’t get an offer they would even consider. So now he is still on the team and even less valuable than last year. As I said, the Sox can ask for whatever they want. Doesn’t mean they get it. If they choose to be unreasonable again this off season they will have Crochet again in 25’ and he will be less valuable next off season when the 55 win team tries to trade him again. 

[Stratos]

4 hours ago, LBiittner said:

Can we believe Jon Morosi?

Cubs are in on a Garrett Crochet?

Let's play Goldilocks: how much is too much to give? And how much is jussst right?

Trivia question? When was the last time cubs had 4 leftys in the rotation, if ever?

What does "viable candidates" mean though?  That they seem to match up well?  He doesn't say "are interested in...."

[chibears55]

2 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Crochet discussion here

 

Isnt he injured alot ?

I think if I'm giving up top prospects I'd prefer to trade them for someone that hasn't had injury history 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Isnt he injured alot ?

I think if I'm giving up top prospects I'd prefer to trade them for someone that hasn't had injury history 

Crochet has had injuries, yes. But many of them stem from the elbow which he has had TJS on. Since then he's had one IL trip in June of 2023 related to his shoulder. He was free of the IL last year. 

When it comes to injury history...he's a pitcher. Reality with pitchers now a days? They almost all come with injury history. There are those who may not have needed TJS, but it's rare to find workhorses who miss that kind of thing. That doesn't mean we should be getting guys prone to being hurt...but I think we have to accept when it comes to getting arms...that's probably going to be a thing.

[Bertz]

Fans definitely are not comfortable doing anything beyond just averaging yearly MLB innings when thinking about injury risk.  Saw it with Glasnow discussions last year, Boyd this year.  If you have the audacity to have a mid year arm surgery that impacts two different seasons you get shat on way more than cleanly missing a single calendar year.