Cubs sign Matt Boyd (2/29)

[champaignchris]

That seems like an awful lot to spend on a guy who hasn’t pitched more than 88 innings in a season at any level since 2019. 

[thawv]

5 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

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.

cot's has 61.5 million.  What is your source? 

My starting number was not wrong.  I never allowed for injury or deadline money, which brought my number to the low 50's to spend, leaving 8-10 million to spare.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Post Count Padder said:

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. 

Agreed.  Interesting arm but how do you give him 2/29 as THE rotation pickup?  Just an odd move, trying to be too cute here IMO, kinda like the Chatwood signing.  Just go pay a bit more and get proven quality without the injury history.  He's Cade Horton without the stuff lol. 

If they want to ride the guy for 140 ip this year after not doing that in many years they're just setting him up for more injuries.

[Stratos]

3 hours 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.

Even as the depth 2nd starter acquired this winter this is a bit of an overpay for a guy who hasn't pitched many innings in forever.

Hopefully he's better than Hendricks was last year lol

 

[Tryptamine]

It's like Jed can't help himself when it comes to trying to prove he's the smartest guy in the room. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

I so would have preferred Flaherty. If they still get him, then I can get behind the rotation, even if there is a huge risk to the strategy. I personally wouldn't spend anything on the bench except for possibly C depth but even then I hate the expenditure and would rather find a guy via trade who won't cost 6-8M. 

 

I'll wait to see what other SP they add because there are so many scenarios but I am perplexed by this move to a large degree even if he has been very effective when available. 

[Cuzi]

9 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I so would have preferred Flaherty. If they still get him, then I can get behind the rotation, even if there is a huge risk to the strategy. I personally wouldn't spend anything on the bench except for possibly C depth but even then I hate the expenditure and would rather find a guy via trade who won't cost 6-8M. 

 

I'll wait to see what other SP they add because there are so many scenarios but I am perplexed by this move to a large degree even if he has been very effective when available. 

They just spent 25% of the budget on Boyd. They aren't signing a Flaherty. They are going to have to trade for someone. Think more Sandy Alcantara and less any FA not named Sasaki.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Cuzi

[Stratos]

2 hours 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. 

It's possible they sign another 3rd-rate SP with upside, or trade for one.  That would make it 6 SP for 2 rotation spots if you count Wesneski too, and just let them all duke it out and put the others in the pen,  Guys will get hurt inevitably too.

I'm not particularly optimistic at this point.

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 minute ago, Cuzi said:

They just spent 25% of the budget on Boyd. They aren't signing a Flaherty. They are going to have to trade for someone. Think Sandy Alcantara and less any FA not named Sasaki.

If they had 50 to spend I would take 14.5 on Boyd and heard Flaherty is looking at 3/63, so I would take Robertson at 10 or a LHRP option and call it a day, leave a few mil for TDL if necessary, wouldn't care much. They showed they aren't afraid to go over even if they do it in a strange manner. Scour the market for a pre-arb C for trade.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Stratos said:

It's possible they sign another 3rd-rate SP with upside, or trade for one.  That would make it 6 SP for 2 rotation spots if you count Wesneski too, and just let them all duke it out and put the others in the pen,  Guys will get hurt inevitably too.

I'm not particularly optimistic at this point.

It's probably not realistic, though. I might not always love everything the team does, but they're not insane enough to consider Boyd a full-time rotational arm who's going 150+ IP. With that said, they probably have something like $26-28m left to spend. They will probably sign three more MLB players for BP and bench roles already. Even averaging a pretty paltry $5m-$6m, that's going to eat up most of that money. They would be able to do next-to-nothing with that remainder for a SP. 

I'd put the chances of a SP trade fulfilling the 2nd SP as something around, at least, 80/20 if not 90/10.

If the Cubs were to sign another SP, it'd probably require the Cubs to dump most of Bellinger's contract. But they'd still need to replace him, too. Realistically, it's almost assuredly going to be a SP they trade for. 

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

If they had 50 to spend I would take 14.5 on Boyd and heard Flaherty is looking at 3/63, so I would take Robertson at 10 or a LHRP option and call it a day, leave a few mil for TDL if necessary, wouldn't care much. They showed they aren't afraid to go over even if they do it in a strange manner. Scour the market for a pre-arb C for trade.

And then you have no bench.

[gocubs218]

Boyd’s salary for 2025 is 7.5 million, FYI.

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by gocubs218

[Cuzi]

2 minutes ago, gocubs218 said:

Boyd’s salary for 2024 is 7.5 million, FYI.

2024 is in the past, FYI.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Just now, Cuzi said:

And then you have no bench.

I hate the idea of spending on bench players anyway. I'm using Cowles, Canario, or other internal options, and looking at possible trades, The Cubs entire top of the farm is in Iowa already. I'm leaving room for them to be integrated. I also think a guy like Triantos could be far more valuable than we expect, based on recent defensive reports. The guy can be played at many positions and brings high contact with good speed. Good bench player. Shaw will also get a lot of time on the roster, as well as Alcantara, potentially. 

[Jason Ross]

Contract breakdown:

2025 - $7.5m base, $5m bonus 

2026 - $14.5m 

2027 - mutual option ($15m), $2m buyout

[Backtobanks]

22 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I so would have preferred Flaherty. If they still get him, then I can get behind the rotation, even if there is a huge risk to the strategy. I personally wouldn't spend anything on the bench except for possibly C depth but even then I hate the expenditure and would rather find a guy via trade who won't cost 6-8M. 

 

I'll wait to see what other SP they add because there are so many scenarios but I am perplexed by this move to a large degree even if he has been very effective when available. 

I wouldn't mind if they signed Lorenzen and then mix and match at the bottom of the rotation.

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

I wouldn't mind if they signed Lorenzen and then mix and match at the bottom of the rotation.

I would. As of right now, the bottom of the rotation is probably plenty deep, with Boyd, Assad, Wicks, Birdsell, Brown, and Horton (and maybe Pearson!) all capable of taking starts sometime in 2025. With limited monetary resources, and a need to really bolster the back end of the bullpen, spending more to mix and match even more in that aspect is probably overkill and a mismanagement of funds. 

[Cuzi]

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

and a mismanagement of funds. 

Now you have peaked Jed's interest.

[Tryptamine]

Frankly I'd be real surprised if another SP came via FA unless Jed is just going to completely ignore the bench/pen. 

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

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.

Yeah I think Boyd would be very ripe for a piggyback with like Brown or Wesneski.

I'd be really down for a situation like this if we had a strong top 3.  Someone else in the Steel/Shota tier and then thunder dome in the 4/5 spots.  If Taillon’s still our #3 that idea doesn't have as much luster.

[Bertz]

5 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Now you have peaked Jed's interest.

Piqued*

[We Got The Whole 9]

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Yeah I think Boyd would be very ripe for a piggyback with like Brown or Wesneski.

I'd be really down for a situation like this if we had a strong top 3.  Someone else in the Steel/Shota tier and then thunder dome in the 4/5 spots.  If Taillon’s still our #3 that idea doesn't have as much luster.

Steele

Shota

Flaherty

Taillon

Boyd/Wicks/Assad/Brown, etc.

[Cuzi]

7 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Piqued*

[Tryptamine]

15 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Steele

Shota

Flaherty

Taillon

Boyd/Wicks/Assad/Brown, etc.

If they sign Flaherty as well they're going to have almost nothing to address the bullpen and bench.

[Rcal10]

37 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

It's probably not realistic, though. I might not always love everything the team does, but they're not insane enough to consider Boyd a full-time rotational arm who's going 150+ IP. With that said, they probably have something like $26-28m left to spend. They will probably sign three more MLB players for BP and bench roles already. Even averaging a pretty paltry $5m-$6m, that's going to eat up most of that money. They would be able to do next-to-nothing with that remainder for a SP. 

I'd put the chances of a SP trade fulfilling the 2nd SP as something around, at least, 80/20 if not 90/10.

If the Cubs were to sign another SP, it'd probably require the Cubs to dump most of Bellinger's contract. But they'd still need to replace him, too. Realistically, it's almost assuredly going to be a SP they trade for. 

I am still sticking to the premise they had about $46 to $50M to spend and still save $3M to $4M in the event they add at the deadline. So I still feel they have anywhere from $32M-$36M to spend. I honestly think the Bellinger trade idea wasn’t to cut payroll. It was to reallocate payroll. I feel too much is being made about the rumors they plan to cut payroll. My guess is that stemmed from them shopping Bellinger. I think they will be close to the LT line again this year, which leaves them with $32-$36M they can spend. That said, it is far more likely they trade for another pitcher than sign another FA. In fact of the 3 options, (go with this current rotation, trade for another starter or sign a FA starter)the signing would be the least likely thing they would do, IMO.