Rosenthal: Cubs want to trade Bellinger

[Cuzi]

Just now, TomtheBombadil said:

Does it crack anyone else up that all offseason is going to be Cubs fans whining about not spending while also calling every dollar spent an overpayz? It’s fascinating, no?

It cracks me up that someone thinks Bellinger's money is somehow related to every dollar the Cubs spend.

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I really dont know how you jump to the conclusion that those $32.5M were only ever going to be used on Bellinger.

Where in anything I said do I suggest the $32M spend on Bellinger was only going to be used on Bellinger. I don’t even know what you are talking about. I have no idea the point you are even trying to same with this comment. This is all part of a discussion we are having because you said Bellinger opting in has caused Jed to scrap his entire off season plan. I disagree with that. And I am trying to see why you suggest that. I already acknowledged that I agree Jed would have rather he opted out. I just don’t see him staying changing much, with the exception of he won’t now sign a FA bat or trade for a FA bat that requires a high salary.

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

Where in anything I said do I suggest the $32M spend on Bellinger was only going to be used on Bellinger.

Ummm... in your very first sentence.

 

26 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So Bellinger opting out would have cleared out more money and then the Cubs would have went with Cassie in the outfield/DH and not spent that money?

[Rcal10]

26 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Ummm... in your very first sentence.

 

Still don’t follow. I asked you what they would do with the money had it not been Bellinger. I assume it would have went for a different higher priced bat. Assuming that was the case, how does Bellinger costing maybe $10M more than the higher priced bat they brought in, scrap the entire plan? Maybe it means they get Morgan instead of Stephenson. Now they are back to the same amount (roughly) to spend on the rest of the roster. I don’t understand how you take this to mean I assumed the $32M spend would only be spent on Bellinger. 

[Cuzi]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Still don’t follow. I asked you what they would do with the money had it not been Bellinger. I assume it would have went for a different higher priced bat. Assuming that was the case, how does Bellinger costing maybe $10M more than the higher priced bat they brought in, scrap the entire plan? Maybe it means they get Morgan instead of Stephenson. Now they are back to the same amount (roughly) to spend on the rest of the roster. I don’t understand how you take this to mean I assumed the $32M spend would only be spent on Bellinger. 

Maybe your problem is you are ignoring the pitching side of baseball and for months, prior to any decision from Bellinger, we have known that priority #1 has been TOR pitching. Now Bellinger opts in and the Cubs arent shopping at the top of the pitching market.

It's really not a novel concept to use cheap, quality, players to save money in one area in order to spend money in another.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Cuzi

[Rcal10]

12 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Maybe your problem is you are ignoring the pitching side of baseball and for months, prior to any decision from Bellinger, we have known that priority #1 has been TOR pitching. Now Bellinger opts in and the Cubs arent shopping at the top of the pitching market.

It's really not a novel concept to use cheap, quality, players to save money in one area in order to spend money in another.

Ok, so you are suggesting that has Bellinger opted out the Cubs could have used that money to shop at the highest end of the pitching market. Fine. That is all you had to say. I don’t think they would have. I think they would have tried replacing his bat. But at least now I understand your point. Just don’t agree, which is fine. I think the plan without Bellinger was one bat, one MOR starter, a pen arm or two, a back up catcher and maybe improve the bench a little. With Bellinger they scrap the idea of the bat. They can still implement the rest of the plan. 

[Tryptamine]

I don't see how moving Bellinger as a salary dump makes any sense given that this is a mediocre offense as is. I found it dubious they'll be able to trade him for whoever and still add an equal or better players for any time of particularly notable cash savings. So let's say you trade Bellinger for Castillo

Bellinger makes 27.5M this year, Castillo makes 22.75. So, for 2025, you come out 4.75M ahead, but then you need to replace Bellinger's bat. Pete Alonso is going to set you back probably 20-25M annually, so will Santander and neither of them bring anything defensively nor the positional versatility.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, Tryptamine said:

I don't see how moving Bellinger as a salary dump makes any sense given that this is a mediocre offense as is. I found it dubious they'll be able to trade him for whoever and still add an equal or better players for any time of particularly notable cash savings. So let's say you trade Bellinger for Castillo

Bellinger makes 27.5M this year, Castillo makes 22.75. So, for 2025, you come out 4.75M ahead, but then you need to replace Bellinger's bat. Pete Alonso is going to set you back probably 20-25M annually, so will Santander and neither of them bring anything defensively nor the positional versatility.

It is a pretty good offense as is, but even setting that aside, if they trade him to free up the money, it's because they believe they can find a 1B/OF bat easier and/or less expensively than a good SP.  That doesn't seem hard to imagine.  To use names as an illustration, Michael Conforto will come cheaper than Eovaldi or Flaherty.

[Tryptamine]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

It is a pretty good offense as is, but even setting that aside, if they trade him to free up the money, it's because they believe they can find a 1B/OF bat easier and/or less expensively than a good SP.  That doesn't seem hard to imagine.  To use names as an illustration, Michael Conforto will come cheaper than Eovaldi or Flaherty.

He's also a guy who doesn't have Bellinger's upside with the bat, not since 2020 anyway, nor any of his defensive value. 

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

It is a pretty good offense as is, but even setting that aside, if they trade him to free up the money, it's because they believe they can find a 1B/OF bat easier and/or less expensively than a good SP.  That doesn't seem hard to imagine.  To use names as an illustration, Michael Conforto will come cheaper than Eovaldi or Flaherty.

But don’t you still need Flaherty or Eovaldi too? He said if they salary dump Bellinger. Not if they trade him for someone like Castillo. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

12 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

But don’t you still need Flaherty or Eovaldi too? He said if they salary dump Bellinger. Not if they trade him for someone like Castillo. 

It doesn't really matter, Bellinger + Eovaldi/Flaherty costs less money than Conforto + Eovaldi/Flaherty/Castillo 

[thawv]

49 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I don't see how moving Bellinger as a salary dump makes any sense given that this is a mediocre offense as is. I found it dubious they'll be able to trade him for whoever and still add an equal or better players for any time of particularly notable cash savings. So let's say you trade Bellinger for Castillo

Bellinger makes 27.5M this year, Castillo makes 22.75. So, for 2025, you come out 4.75M ahead, but then you need to replace Bellinger's bat. Pete Alonso is going to set you back probably 20-25M annually, so will Santander and neither of them bring anything defensively nor the positional versatility.

If Alonso is getting 20-25 mil a year, the Cubs need to move Cody for Castillo as a bit of a contract wash, move Suzuki back to right, and DH Alonso. 

[Tryptamine]

6 minutes ago, thawv said:

If Alonso is getting 20-25 mil a year, the Cubs need to move Cody for Castillo as a bit of a contract wash, move Suzuki back to right, and DH Alonso. 

Why would he get more? He's coming off two years with a 122 and 121 wRC+, that's Ian Happ and Ian at least gives you defense and a few SB. Not to mention Alonso had a body type and skill set that falls off fast.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Tryptamine

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, thawv said:

If Alonso is getting 20-25 mil a year, the Cubs need to move Cody for Castillo as a bit of a contract wash, move Suzuki back to right, and DH Alonso. 

I think Alonso would be a terrible signing if any more than 3 to 4 years. 

[thawv]

12 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Why would he get more? He's coming off two years with a 122 and 121 wRC+, that's Ian Happ and Ian at least gives you defense and a few SB. Not to mention Alonso had a body type and skill set that falls off fast.

I don't think he deserves more than that.  But with the nature of free agency, I think he gets closer to 30 million. 

[thawv]

11 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I think Alonso would be a terrible signing if any more than 3 to 4 years. 

I agree with you.  But I think there's going to be a couple of teams looking to give him 6/180 money.  Not that exact amount, but more money, and likely longer than it should be. 

 

But if Boras wets his pants like last off season, and over plays his hand, that of course will change.  Boras is not on the same page as these team presidents, who all seem to be using the same metric to determine a player's value.  Boras is still using past performance, while teams are using future performance.   

[Tryptamine]

Just now, thawv said:

I agree with you.  But I think there's going to be a couple of teams looking to give him 6/180 money.  Not that exact amount, but more money, and likely longer than it should be. 

 

But if Boras wets his pants like last off season, and over plays his hand, that of course will change.  Boras is not on the same page as these team presidents, who all seem to be using the same metric to determine a player's value.  Boras is still using past performance, while teams are using future performance.   

I would be shocked if he got 6/180. Freddie Freeman got 6/162 and he's a way better player than Alonso.

[thawv]

20 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I would be shocked if he got 6/180. Freddie Freeman got 6/162 and he's a way better player than Alonso.

I guess we'll see.  But there is a market valuation analysis done on all the free agents.  And yes, Freeman's contract would suggest that Alonso should not get close to that.   I use my starting point as Spotrac's market value analysis and go from there. 

 

Spotrac did not use Freeman's contract as one of their 4 comps.  My guess is that he was older at the time of his signing.  Arenado, Rendon, Judge, and Olson are the 4 comps they used.  Then they plug in stats and adjust from there.  They come up with 6/174 for Alonso.  I know that I would never pay him that if it was my cash.  

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, thawv said:

I guess we'll see.  But there is a market valuation analysis done on all the free agents.  And yes, Freeman's contract would suggest that Alonso should not get close to that.   I use my starting point as Spotrac's market value analysis and go from there. 

 

Spotrac did not use Freeman's contract as one of their 4 comps.  My guess is that he was older at the time of his signing.  Arenado, Rendon, Judge, and Olson are the 4 comps they used.  Then they plug in stats and adjust from there.  They come up with 6/174 for Alonso.  I know that I would never pay him that if it was my cash.  

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. 

[Tryptamine]

59 minutes ago, thawv said:

I guess we'll see.  But there is a market valuation analysis done on all the free agents.  And yes, Freeman's contract would suggest that Alonso should not get close to that.   I use my starting point as Spotrac's market value analysis and go from there. 

 

Spotrac did not use Freeman's contract as one of their 4 comps.  My guess is that he was older at the time of his signing.  Arenado, Rendon, Judge, and Olson are the 4 comps they used.  Then they plug in stats and adjust from there.  They come up with 6/174 for Alonso.  I know that I would never pay him that if it was my cash.  

But those guys are all so much better than Alonso.

[Jason Ross]

It's Bob. So you can do with this as you please. However, 

Quote

The Cubs, whose 2016-era championship window closed abruptly, are a cash cow with one of the largest markets in baseball. Yet, instead of negotiating with any of the marquee free agents, they instead are focusing on the mid-market players. They're probably out on Soto, Burnes, Fried and Snell.

The only thing that could change their plan is if they’re able to unload first baseman/outfielder Cody Bellinger.

The worst-kept secret at the GM meetings was the Cubs offering Bellinger to anyone and everyone. So far, no team has expressed strong interest.

“Come on," one GM said, “who’s going to touch that contract? The risk is just too great for the production."

...

If the Cubs are able to move Bellinger, they likely would have to eat money in the deal or assume another similar contract.

Per USA Today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2024/11/25/mlb-rumors-juan-soto-latest-news-trade-market/76556552007/

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Jed may well fight Bob in the lobby of the Winter Meetings hotel

[NorthsideAvenger]

6 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Jed may well fight Bob in the lobby of the Winter Meetings hotel

That would be more entertaining than Tyson/Paul.

[Jason Ross]

Maybe I'm reading too much into what Nightengale is saying (which, it's always kind of hard to figure out what he's trying to get at through the Bob-Fog) but it almost seemed to suggest that if the Cubs were to trade Bellinger, that the reason would be to go after that top tier of free agents. Which feels a bit new. Whether that's Bob speculation or not...

[thawv]

13 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

But those guys are all so much better than Alonso.

They use age and signed contracts to start.  Then I want to say that they use 9 stats and adjust the final number.  I personally think it's very high, but I like to check out their MVA on guys that are linked to the Cubs.  I personally think 4/96 is about right.  But my number is way less involved than Spotrac is.