Cubs sign Matt Boyd (2/29)

[CubsLeaf]

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by CubsLeaf

[Jason Ross]

That just doesn't feel like a great usage of the $40m or so we have. He isn't a durable starter. He's overpaid as a Smyly guy in the pen. I don't really understand this. At all. Is this better than signing a Kikuchi or an Eovaldi for a little more AAV? He doesn't solve the need for some right-handed-ommph in the rotation, and adds another low-90's fastball velo LHP into the mix with other pitchers like that.

It feels like a luxury signing, as Boyd can be effective. But you can't count on him for more than 80 innings and at $14.5m that's not a small amount of the money the team has available for those 80 innings you can count on him for. That's a lot of money per start-you-can-count-on for a team who doesn't feel like they have that kind of money laying around.

Maybe he gets to more and the recent TJS fixed him! But he hasn't done that since pre-covid and at 34 I wouldn't make that gamble. Like, maybe this is your "Shane Bieber reclamation signing" but this feel expensive for someone at his age and his injury history. Maybe it signals a pretty quick exiting of other money (Hoerner/Bellinger seem to be the possibilities) or the Cubs are super sure for whatever reason they're getting Sasaki and want to build a 6-man rotation with a top-3 guy coming in super cheap, but if not, it leaves the Cubs with $25m or so and you still need BP help, a better rotational arm, and bench players and all you can really be sure of is you're getting 50-100 innings of production. In the vacuum of the offseason we have so far, it feels pretty far removed from what I'd consider things that make a ton of sense. There's a pretty scary world in which the Cubs acquire Matt Boyd as the mid-rotational arm addition, but I'm going to assume they're not that wacky. So I'm not going to really ruminate on that too much right now.

They see the big picture right now that I don't see and the math can change quickly, but I'm pretty perplexed by this as of now. It's not exactly the same, but this feels like it could become another version of the Mancini/Barnhart/Smyly type of deal where it's not soul crushing money, but you just look back on it an and wonder if the money could have been much more effectively spent elsewhere.

[17 Seconds]

this organization sucks so badly

[NorthsideAvenger]

This move tells me the Cubs are not interested in winning. Get ready for another low 80 win season and missing the playoffs by a few games.

Edited December 2, 2024 by NorthsideAvenger

[Post Count Padder]

I like Boyd and his stuff and thought he'd be an interesting secondary SP add but this seems like a lot of money for a guy who hasn't pitched a full real season since 2019. 

[Bertz]

I'd presume we're trading for a SP now, and Boyd is going to slot in as the #2 guy from this winter.  If not, woof obviously, but if so this is pretty fun.  He got very successfully pitch labbed last year by Cleveland.  Still in SSS which is why he didn't get paid more but he might be quite good.

I'd imagine he functions as a sort of deluxe Smyly.  I'm sure as part of signing he got assurances on a rotation spot, but I doubt he has an iron grip on it.  Also with his durability questions ultimately ending up in the bullpen is very possible.

[CubinNY]

WTF? Carter Hawkins must really like him.

[Rcal10]

24 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I'd presume we're trading for a SP now, and Boyd is going to slot in as the #2 guy from this winter.  If not, woof obviously, but if so this is pretty fun.  He got very successfully pitch labbed last year by Cleveland.  Still in SSS which is why he didn't get paid more but he might be quite good.

I'd imagine he functions as a sort of deluxe Smyly.  I'm sure as part of signing he got assurances on a rotation spot, but I doubt he has an iron grip on it.  Also with his durability questions ultimately ending up in the bullpen is very possible.

If they now trade for a staring pitcher and Boyd is the #5 I guess it is ok. But this is a lot of money for a #5. Leaves them at most $35M to spend. So the pitcher they trade for will have to be younger and controlled and probably cost a lot of minor league assets. But if they did that and still had around $30M they can add a pen arm, a catcher and a bench bat. But for now, I don’t see this as a good move. And, at best, with all of what I said above it is only an ok move adding a #5 starter at a high price. 

[Jason Ross]

This is really going to force them to make a significant and consequential trade for a young, cost controlled SP. With that kind of a trade, I kind of understand Boyd, but it feels very much like the Cubs have put themselves into a corner here to make that kind of acquisition by signing Boyd then going the trade route. They must feel very confident of pulling that off. I'd prefer having that kind of a trade done before Boyd, as there probably just isn't enough money left to pivot substantially if they need to. 

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This is really going to force them to make a significant and consequential trade for a young, cost controlled SP. With that kind of a trade, I kind of understand Boyd, but it feels very much like the Cubs have put themselves into a corner here to make that kind of acquisition by signing Boyd then going the trade route. They must feel very confident of pulling that off. I'd prefer having that kind of a trade done before Boyd, as there probably just isn't enough money left to pivot substantially if they need to. 

Jed's favorite pastime is putting himself in a corner while trying to show everyone he's the smartest guy in the room. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

11 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This is really going to force them to make a significant and consequential trade for a young, cost controlled SP. With that kind of a trade, I kind of understand Boyd, but it feels very much like the Cubs have put themselves into a corner here to make that kind of acquisition by signing Boyd then going the trade route. They must feel very confident of pulling that off. I'd prefer having that kind of a trade done before Boyd, as there probably just isn't enough money left to pivot substantially if they need to. 

Jed only has so much control over sequencing of moves, some players sign quick or slow and some trades happen only after certain other moves happen.  To that end, signing 2 SP better than Assad/Wicks was always going to be unlikely given non-Mets spending power and general market forces (teams will be more desperate for their first than your second).

 

 That said, this is a really risky bet on Boyd’s 2024 given the team’s status and amount to spend.  I really hope it’s a signal of confidence in being able to get a trade over the line, because Boyd as the only SP of significance isn’t good enough.

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Jed only has so much control over sequencing of moves, some players sign quick or slow and some trades happen only after certain other moves happen.  To that end, signing 2 SP better than Assad/Wicks was always going to be unlikely given non-Mets spending power and general market forces (teams will be more desperate for their first than your second).

 

 That said, this is a really risky bet on Boyd’s 2024 given the team’s status and amount to spend.  I really hope it’s a signal of confidence in being able to get a trade over the line, because Boyd as the only SP of significance isn’t good enough.

He does only have so much control, totally agree. I think we can make a counter point, however, that it didn't have to be Matt Boyd. Boyd doesn't seem like a relative bargain for what he signed ($2/29m sounds about where you'd have predicted it) and the market didn't seem to be moving so fast that without singing Boyd right now that you'd be left holding the bag. It's hard to say what the undercurrents are here, and maybe the market is about to move fast and we just don't know from our position. 

But it does really force his hand. And I think it forces his hand to a point where the trade that has to come has to be pretty significant. Like, I'd say it has to be more than a Bryce Miller or a Clarke Schmidt. I could see a world where you brought in someone who was less a gamble (i.e. Nathan Eovaldi) and someone like that works as a guy who really adds length into the 3/4 spots together, but with even more money locked up, and even even less glaring roster fixes...it feels like the Cubs now have to go really into a "this guy is for-sure-pretty damn good" territory on who they round the rotation out with. 

[BigbadB]

This type of signing makes me feel like they might already have the parts in place for a trade, which could be getting held up until after the Sasaki sweepstakes.

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

This type of signing makes me feel like they might already have the parts in place for a trade, which could be getting held up until after the Sasaki sweepstakes.

I hope that they feel like they have those machinations in place. I would say that it's probably pretty unlikely anything would get held up with Sasaki however. Even if you get him, he's probably going to be on some limitations on innings and a 6-man feels likely. 

You make the trade...then you worry about Roki. He won't sign until mid-January. Too much time for those foundations to change. I think you do your off-season regardless of Sasaki. Then you either win that or not.

[Rob]

I'm going to try to reserve judgment on this one.

One thing the Dodgers figured out a while back was that you can never have enough pitching. They tend to go into the season with 7-8 solid SP in varying states of health. Boyd is usually quite effective when healthy, so long as he's healthy at advantageous times, this would be a great contract for a team like the Dodgers.

If the Cubs are able to stack SP and we aren't relying on Boyd to remain healthy, I'd be a fan of this signing. So I'm going to withhold judgment until I see how the rest of the offseason plays out.

[Tim]

Just a quick note for those thinking Boyd pitched 39 innings last year. He also had three more starts in the playoffs with a 0.77 era and 2.57 FIP. Now...he averaged less than 4 ip in those starts, but that's playoff baseball in 2024.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

12 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

He does only have so much control, totally agree. I think we can make a counter point, however, that it didn't have to be Matt Boyd. Boyd doesn't seem like a relative bargain for what he signed ($2/29m sounds about where you'd have predicted it) and the market didn't seem to be moving so fast that without singing Boyd right now that you'd be left holding the bag. It's hard to say what the undercurrents are here, and maybe the market is about to move fast and we just don't know from our position. 

But it does really force his hand. And I think it forces his hand to a point where the trade that has to come has to be pretty significant. Like, I'd say it has to be more than a Bryce Miller or a Clarke Schmidt. I could see a world where you brought in someone who was less a gamble (i.e. Nathan Eovaldi) and someone like that works as a guy who really adds length into the 3/4 spots together, but with even more money locked up, and even even less glaring roster fixes...it feels like the Cubs now have to go really into a "this guy is for-sure-pretty damn good" territory on who they round the rotation out with. 

I'm not going to hold a candle for Boyd specifically(though him pitching at a 4 win pace last year is nice to dream on), but the broader point is that you're only signing 1 SP of real consequence, waiting on a guy or 2 you like marginally more that may take til Christmas or end up in a bidding war at 2 years and 8 million AAV more than you hoped isn't devoid of downside.

As for forcing his hand on the trade, there are like 2 FA SP clearly better than a Bryce Miller, and lots of people had resigned themselves to not being contenders for their signature.  It does make a couple of the higher AAV trade guys impractical without moving Bellinger. But again we can take that as a signal that Jed tied a hand behind his back just to get Boyd, or he's reacting to what may truly be available at a reasonable cost.

[Bertz]

I'll say going with a guy who is good on a rate basis but you're worried about volume makes the second SP feel pretty inevitable.  I'd be tugging my collar a lot more if I'd woken up to like a Kyle Gibson or Lance Lynn signing.

[Jason Ross]

17 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I'm not going to hold a candle for Boyd specifically(though him pitching at a 4 win pace last year is nice to dream on), but the broader point is that you're only signing 1 SP of real consequence, waiting on a guy or 2 you like marginally more that may take til Christmas or end up in a bidding war at 2 years and 8 million AAV more than you hoped isn't devoid of downside.

As for forcing his hand on the trade, there are like 2 FA SP clearly better than a Bryce Miller, and lots of people had resigned themselves to not being contenders for their signature.  It does make a couple of the higher AAV trade guys impractical without moving Bellinger. But again we can take that as a signal that Jed tied a hand behind his back just to get Boyd, or he's reacting to what may truly be available at a reasonable cost.

I think you're a lot higher on Bryce Miller than I am, because I would argue there are more free agent SP's I like more than Miller in a vacuum. I think he's a guy I've got as a low-end #3 but realistically, a guy you want more as a good #4 with some upside that you have to coax out. He's not particularly adept at pulling chase, whiff, limiting hard contact...his pitches grade out as good, but for some reason, these things don't follow. Miller's value to me seems more tied to control/.cost and less to immediate impact.

But without turning this into a Miller debate, it's the brooder point I'm making is that the Cubs, as they sign a pitcher you cannot trust in Matt Boyd, now feel forced to trade for something you can really count on to be very good. And I'll be pretty disappointed with a plan that consistent, top-to-bottom of "we can fix'ems" if they go with a Miller profile instead. I think there's power in finding value that way and the Cubs need to do some of that. By signing a Matt Boyd today, it feels more like you really have to get past the fix-em and need something you know. Like I said, there's a lot going on behind the scenes, and the Cubs know their position infinitely better than I do. Maybe the trade is close, or they really like what they're getting close to. Or maybe they know the pitching market is about to speed run past this point. This kind of trade just really puts an emphasis on who the second SP is to me. 

As I stated originally, I remain quite perplexed. It's not necessarily I think this is bad, but the next move is going to be kind of what seals this move for me. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, Bertz said:

I'll say going with a guy who is good on a rate basis but you're worried about volume makes the second SP feel pretty inevitable.  I'd be tugging my collar a lot more if I'd woken up to like a Kyle Gibson or Lance Lynn signing.

Was just thinking something similar looking at Boyd more closely.  The innings totals have been so low that it's simply impractical to think of him as a rotation stalwart, a full season of even the 5 and dive outings he's had in recent years would nearly double his IP high from the last half decade.  

[squally1313]

On the one (more important) hand, I probably would not have made this signing. There's some interesting ways to look at it if you squint the right way and it's especially a move that has to be looked at as part of the broader picture, but...pass.

On the other hand, committing $14m/year to a pitcher like this (on sale dollar store DeGrom?) doesn't really scream 'PTR is handcuffing Jed and the payroll is most definitely coming down'. You just don't (or I guess, 'can't') make this move in a world where you have like $30m to spend, especially this early on. 

[Bertz]

You have to be logged in to see the quoted tweet but basically a short thread from a Mets fan about Frankie Montas and how teams are more and more looking at pitchers as their arsenals instead of as their past performance.  Feels just as relevant to Boyd as Montas

[thawv]

5 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

That just doesn't feel like a great usage of the $40m or so we have. He isn't a durable starter. He's overpaid as a Smyly guy in the pen. I don't really understand this. At all. Is this better than signing a Kikuchi or an Eovaldi for a little more AAV? He doesn't solve the need for some right-handed-ommph in the rotation, and adds another low-90's fastball velo LHP into the mix with other pitchers like that.

It feels like a luxury signing, as Boyd can be effective. But you can't count on him for more than 80 innings and at $14.5m that's not a small amount of the money the team has available for those 80 innings you can count on him for. That's a lot of money per start-you-can-count-on for a team who doesn't feel like they have that kind of money laying around.

Maybe he gets to more and the recent TJS fixed him! But he hasn't done that since pre-covid and at 34 I wouldn't make that gamble. Like, maybe this is your "Shane Bieber reclamation signing" but this feel expensive for someone at his age and his injury history. Maybe it signals a pretty quick exiting of other money (Hoerner/Bellinger seem to be the possibilities) or the Cubs are super sure for whatever reason they're getting Sasaki and want to build a 6-man rotation with a top-3 guy coming in super cheap, but if not, it leaves the Cubs with $25m or so and you still need BP help, a better rotational arm, and bench players and all you can really be sure of is you're getting 50-100 innings of production. In the vacuum of the offseason we have so far, it feels pretty far removed from what I'd consider things that make a ton of sense. There's a pretty scary world in which the Cubs acquire Matt Boyd as the mid-rotational arm addition, but I'm going to assume they're not that wacky. So I'm not going to really ruminate on that too much right now.

They see the big picture right now that I don't see and the math can change quickly, but I'm pretty perplexed by this as of now. It's not exactly the same, but this feels like it could become another version of the Mancini/Barnhart/Smyly type of deal where it's not soul crushing money, but you just look back on it an and wonder if the money could have been much more effectively spent elsewhere.

Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with only 40 million to spend?  Is that after this signing?

 

I have 61.5 million before this signing.  Maybe keep 8-10 million in their pocket for injury payroll and deadline moves.  So I have somewhere in the low 50's to spend.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

14 minutes ago, Bertz said:

You have to be logged in to see the quoted tweet but basically a short thread from a Mets fan about Frankie Montas and how teams are more and more looking at pitchers as their arsenals instead of as their past performance.  Feels just as relevant to Boyd as Montas

Piecing together some things I wonder if you start to see a 'Dodgers-ification' of the pitching staff as a whole.  Previously Jed tended to value length, but with a rotation that already has several guys with that quality and several younger arms who you aren't going to plug and play for 200 IP, plus a manager who you can trust to manage it, maybe they just try and get a bunch of guys who can be really good for 80-120 innings.  This may also be part of the continued rumblings about Pearson starting, or possible interest in doing the Lopez/Hicks conversion with someone like Jeff Hoffman.

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, thawv said:

Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with only 40 million to spend?  Is that after this signing?

 

I have 61.5 million before this signing.  Maybe keep 8-10 million in their pocket for injury payroll and deadline moves.  So I have somewhere in the low 50's to spend.

We have been through this already this offseason, man. The Cubs probably had low $50m under the LT to spend. Your numbers were wrong then, they're wrong now. Reports are that the Cubs will come in under the LT more than they did last year, with more breathing room. Likely $10m or so. $50-$10 = $40m, or so. Maybe add a few mil, or subtract it.