Rosenthal: Cubs want to trade Bellinger

[thawv]

15 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I am shocked that you think he will get that much. Through the years you have been notoriously low on what you expect people to get. And now you are outrageous high. There is no chance in hell Alonso get $180M. If he holds out for that he will be the 2024 version of Chapman and Bellinger. I think the absolute high end for him would be 6/$150M. And I wouldn’t want the Cubs to do it. Anything more than 4/$100M is too much for my liking. 

You're not wrong about my valuations.  But since I've found Spotrac, I find them to be very thorough, and find  it interesting how they come to their conclusion.  I have no idea how Judge is one of their comps, but his contract threw Alonso MVA way off.  I've since started using WAR as a predictive number and how many years I think a guy should get.  Without ever seeing Spotrac, I had him a 4/96.

 

EDIT:  I just checked out RosterResource, which 1908 told me about, and they have him signing for 5/125.  That's much more realistic than Spotrac.  This is going to be my new go to FA page.  

Edited November 26, 2024 by thawv

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

You're not wrong about my valuations.  But since I've found Spotrac, I find them to be very thorough, and find  it interesting how they come to their conclusion.  I have no idea how Judge is one of their comps, but his contract threw Alonso MVA way off.  I've since started using WAR as a predictive number and how many years I think a guy should get.  Without ever seeing Spotrac, I had him a 4/96.

 

EDIT:  I just checked out RosterResource, which 1908 told me about, and they have him signing for 5/125.  That's much more realistic than Spotrac.  This is going to be my new go to FA page.  

Yep, that seems much closer. And your 4/$96 is more more like what I am used to seeing from you👍. It is also where I would call the highest I would be interested in too. I don’t want Alonso for more than 4. And, personally I don’t think he is an upgrade to Bellinger. Sure, he will hit more homers. But that is it. Bellinger helps other ways. 

[Bertz]

Even if we take Bob's words at face value, which lol, it could  as easily be urgency rather than the desperation it's being framed as.  Every day that passes it's less useful to trade Bellinger.  It would have been ideal before the non tender deadline to hold onto Tauchman.  It'd be bordering on useless if you can't get a deal done until January.

[thawv]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

Yep, that seems much closer. And your 4/$96 is more more like what I am used to seeing from you👍. It is also where I would call the highest I would be interested in too. I don’t want Alonso for more than 4. And, personally I don’t think he is an upgrade to Bellinger. Sure, he will hit more homers. But that is it. Bellinger helps other ways. 

Either way, there's not even a roster spot for Pete.  

[Rcal10]

54 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I don’t even really understand any case for the Cubs trading a versatile LHH who makes a ton of contact and otherwise has a nigh impeccable approach? Cap space for hypotheticals? Sounds like a waste of time, the Cubs’ fans obsession (born from freedom prbly) with arbitrarily decidered payroll efficiency,  and some “grass is always greener” nonsense

Grass is always greener is a perfect analogy. If the Cubs dumped Bellinger and then signed Alonso it wouldn’t be long before people would be grousing about Alonso. The more I think about them trading Bellinger the less I like it. The one caveat would be if they really felt Cassie or Shaw could be an everyday player next year giving  them Bellinger production. Then take the Bellinger money and put it into pitching. Instead of one starter and a decent pen arm maybe two starters and someone like Scott or even Holmes to close. Still add a catcher and some bench help. IMO they need to do that with or without Bellinger. Trading him just to rearrange the deck chairs doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t see them any better with Alonso and Castillo than they would be with Bellinger and Eovaldi or Flaherty, as an example. 

[Derwood]

"We want to trade Bellinger to free up money for pitching, but not, you know, GOOD pitching" is certainly a strategy

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Derwood said:

"We want to trade Bellinger to free up money for pitching, but not, you know, GOOD pitching" is certainly a strategy

So if the Cubs freed up money by trading Bellinger that afforded them 2 of Castillo, Flaherty or Eovaldi and then also a closer like Scott or Hughes, that wouldn’t be GOOD pitching? Two of those guys instead of Hendricks and Assad wouldn’t improve the team? An actual closer wouldn’t improve the team? I would rather that be the reason they traded Bellinger than to do so to add Alonso or another FA bat to the team. And I would only want that done assuming they believe Shaw or Cassie could provide Bellinger’s offensive production. 

[Illiterate Scholar]

11 hours ago, Bertz said:

Even if we take Bob's words at face value, which lol, it could  as easily be urgency rather than the desperation it's being framed as.  Every day that passes it's less useful to trade Bellinger.  It would have been ideal before the non tender deadline to hold onto Tauchman.  It'd be bordering on useless if you can't get a deal done until January.

This could be correct. It would make some sense. However, to me, this also has the air of "Certainly they wouldn't pick up Hamels' option if it they know it'll take them out of the Harper sweepstakes." Like all of this would make more sense if Alcantara or Caissie were coming off a 1.000 OPS stint in AAA, but neither are truly forcing the issue as of yet. The fact that Mr "it's about years not dollars" is working hard to trade a good player under contract for only 2 more years, when he's not shopping at the top of the market anyway, has my eyebrows raised. I fear that $50M budget that's been thrown around here and elsewhere will end up not being accurate. I also don't want to make too much out of a player of Tauchman's caliber, but releasing him to save $3M is....odd.

[jersey cubs fan]

30 minutes ago, Illiterate Scholar said:

This could be correct. It would make some sense. However, to me, this also has the air of "Certainly they wouldn't pick up Hamels' option if it they know it'll take them out of the Harper sweepstakes." Like all of this would make more sense if Alcantara or Caissie were coming off a 1.000 OPS stint in AAA, but neither are truly forcing the issue as of yet. The fact that Mr "it's about years not dollars" is working hard to trade a good player under contract for only 2 more years, when he's not shopping at the top of the market anyway, has my eyebrows raised. I fear that $50M budget that's been thrown around here and elsewhere will end up not being accurate. I also don't want to make too much out of a player of Tauchman's caliber, but releasing him to save $3M is....odd.

They didn’t release Tauchman. They chose not to tender him a contract. And there’s nothing wrong with that, especially when your OF is already filled with expensive not great players. 

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

They didn’t release Tauchman. They chose not to tender him a contract. And there’s nothing wrong with that, especially when your OF is already filled with expensive not great players. 

You mean salary appropriate players? Suzuki and Happ are absolutely worth their contracts. PCA is playing at extreme value surplus. The only guy overpaid is Bellinger. But as a whole the main 4 outfielders are absolutely worth the payroll space they take up. 

[jersey cubs fan]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

You mean salary appropriate players? Suzuki and Happ are absolutely worth their contracts. PCA is playing at extreme value surplus. The only guy overpaid is Bellinger. But as a whole the main 4 outfielders are absolutely worth the payroll space they take up. 

I meant expensive players. Tauchman made sense as PCA insurance last season. If Bellinger left it would make sense to renew that insurance policy this year. Bellinger came back so it makes sense to not pay for that policy this season 

[Bertz]

11 hours ago, Illiterate Scholar said:

This could be correct. It would make some sense. However, to me, this also has the air of "Certainly they wouldn't pick up Hamels' option if it they know it'll take them out of the Harper sweepstakes." Like all of this would make more sense if Alcantara or Caissie were coming off a 1.000 OPS stint in AAA, but neither are truly forcing the issue as of yet. The fact that Mr "it's about years not dollars" is working hard to trade a good player under contract for only 2 more years, when he's not shopping at the top of the market anyway, has my eyebrows raised. I fear that $50M budget that's been thrown around here and elsewhere will end up not being accurate. I also don't want to make too much out of a player of Tauchman's caliber, but releasing him to save $3M is....odd.

Again I won't fault anyone for assuming the worst about the Ricketts, but payroll has always been a stones throw from the luxury tax with these exceptions:

- When the team was very bad

- When the last core was ascending circa 2014-2015 and the team had so many pre-arb stars they basically couldn't spend to the tax

- 2021 coming off of COVID and with major short term attendance questions

Maybe the Comcast carriage deal is looking rocky and that will be the team's excuse for austerity.  Again never put anything past Tom.  But trying to trade Bellinger IMO doesn't say anything like that, and cutting Tauchman definitely doesnt.  He's got very little playing time after PCA started hitting, there'snot much reason to think that would have changed in 2025.  I was surprised he didn't have a bit of trade value, but there was very little shot in my mind of him making it to opening day.

[Illiterate Scholar]

15 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

They didn’t release Tauchman. They chose not to tender him a contract.

[Bertz]

Reading this has me wondering about Cody Bellinger for a bad contract AND another good player.

For instance Cody Bellinger for Nick Castellanos, Jose Alvarado, and money to cover Castellanos' 2026 salary?

Or Cody Bellinger for Jordan Montgomery and one of AZ's late inning arms (Ryan Thompson)?

You're not freeing up money, but you're knocking a couple other items off the to-do list while keeping salary flat. 

[Backtobanks]

25 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Reading this has me wondering about Cody Bellinger for a bad contract AND another good player.

For instance Cody Bellinger for Nick Castellanos, Jose Alvarado, and money to cover Castellanos' 2026 salary?

Or Cody Bellinger for Jordan Montgomery and one of AZ's late inning arms (Ryan Thompson)?

You're not freeing up money, but you're knocking a couple other items off the to-do list while keeping salary flat. 

I like the Phillies deal if they throw in $12 million +.  Castellanos becomes DH and Alvarado would add veteran experience in the late innings.