Morosi: "Cubs Among Viable Candidates for Garrett Crochet"

[Cuzi]

10 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

This is unique to Crochet, and not something the Mariners or anyone else would run into, how? What does Willson Contreras, who netted the Cubs a QO pick in the same offseason they signed the QO’d Swanson, have to do with anything? 

Do you even know what you are talking about at this point?

Who said it was unique and something the Mariners wouldn't run into? The Mariners have never come out and offered up any of their pitchers for trade. The White Sox did, whether you want to believe that or not is up to you. Multiple teams were in discussions with the White Sox and then a week before the deadline Crochet made a statement that any trade would have to come with a contract extension with the new team, which scared a few of those teams off from pursuing further. The Cubs were publicly trading Contreras at the deadline as well with multiple teams in on him and actually had a deal in place with the Astros before the owner of the Astros vetoed it.

It's mind blowing how little understanding you have of what you talking about.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Cuzi

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Lotta blah blah blah here, narrative nonsense 

 

 

I imagine you as a 8 year kid who plugs their ears and says "I can't hear you" when you are clearly wrong.

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, TomtheBombadil said:

And you the grandma who thinks fairy tales are real or w/e

Everything I said is a documented fact.

[Cuzi]

Just now, TomtheBombadil said:

I’m sure you’re impressed, but that doesn’t make Willson Conteras for Jose Urquidy good for the Cubs 

That was never the point, Einstein.

[Outshined_One]

2 hours ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Ah, he was fully available everyone wanted him and nothing happened weird how that worked out eh 

So weird!

The White Sox had way, way too high of an asking price at the deadline for any team to make a deal.

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Why

Crochet threw over 140 innings last year when the most he threw before that was around 50. The Sox cut him back last year so that he didn’t get injured. No team in the running traded for him because he was pretty much at his innings limit. If teams thought he was a good risk I can’t imagine someone wouldn’t have traded did him. I am not saying he will be injured. I am saying because of all of the above, I do worry about his arm. I am more concerned about him getting hurt than I am in his ability to be a TOR starter. 

[Rcal10]

15 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

 

Oh teams said their demands are high for the 2something power LH ace (edit) they’d really really really like to have? Unprecedented and definitely not another form of the “overpayz” refrain used on literally any player at any moment 

Edit: Idk why its so hard to see all these pigs want their cake and to eat it too all the time and it’s the same story (overpayz!) over and over 

Except no one did overpay for Crochet or Robert (for that matter). Maybe the Sox learned their lesson last year. Maybe this year they will be more reasonable. Not trading Robert certainly didn’t help his value this year. Not trading Crochet at the deadline last year probably doesn’t help his value this year. And if they don’t trade him this off season he will surely lose value next season. Not sure I understand why they wouldn’t just get the best deal they can for him. I highly doubt he is with them after 2 years and they aren’t going to win in those two years. But it is the WS,so who knows. They are free to put crazy asks out there and maybe someone bites. But I doubt it. But this time when they don’t bite the Sox might have to (or probably should) take best offer. 

[LBiittner]

If I remember correctly, crochet was demanding acquiring team give a huge extension payout before he'd pitch in the post season. But I might be misremembering?

[Tryptamine]

11 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

If I remember correctly, crochet was demanding acquiring team give a huge extension payout before he'd pitch in the post season. But I might be misremembering?

No, you're correct. Basically whoever is trading for Crochet is doing so knowing he's going to want an extension. 

[Stratos]

I feel like Crochet seems like a better match for the Cubs than the Mariners since the Sox would want prospects rather than an MLB guy.  I think any prospect is on the table for the Cubs especially if you can get an extension from Crochet.  He's projected at 4.9 WAR next year, he's a stud.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Stratos

[Dmac]

10 hours ago, TomtheBombadil said:

So extend him? Doesn’t seem like rocket science. They have nothing committed, he’s among the rarest talents in the game, there’s a fine farm ready to contribute…They’re as obligated as the Mariners to move a TOR talent (edit: and notably went out of the way of basic thought to not move him at the deadline when perhaps the haul may have been largest) 

Apparently you forgot who owns the Sox and their team rule of not giving a pitcher more than a four year contract.  So, they have no reason to keep him.  They aren't going to compete in the next two years, and there is no way he would sign a four year deal unless he gets injured.  It makes perfect sense for them to trade him. 

[Jason Ross]

Per Bruce Levine, "You're going to give up three of your top players in your minor league system" for Crochet. Levine used the names Shaw, Caissie and Triantos specifically in conjunction here. 

Other notes:

• 10 teams (or more) have contacted the White Sox
• Levine thinks he will be dealt this offseason
• Nothing appears imminent

[Tryptamine]

10 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Per Bruce Levine, "You're going to give up three of your top players in your minor league system" for Crochet. Levine used the names Shaw, Caissie and Triantos specifically in conjunction here. 

Other notes:

• 10 teams (or more) have contacted the White Sox
• Levine thinks he will be dealt this offseason
• Nothing appears imminent

Yeah, no thanks. Crochet is good, but hasn't  thrown a full season yet and is going to want a huge extension. Not dumping a  top 20, top 50 and top 100 prospect all of which are pretty much MLB ready

Edited December 5, 2024 by Tryptamine

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Yeah, no thanks. Crochet is good, but hasn't  thrown a full season yet and is going to want a huge extension. Not dumping a  top 20, top 50 and top 100 prospect all of which are pretty much MLB ready

If there's a positive, it tends to be that the asking price in the media (Shaw, Caissie, Triantos) tends to be the high-water negotiation price. Having ten total teams means that there's a market, but it's hard to determine how desperate each team is and how hard they're pushing. 

I imagine that if the starting price is there, you can maybe dicker down some. I don't think the final price will match the Levine, price. But it's good to hear some names, because it gives you a bit of a preview.

[squally1313]

Are there even 10 teams in baseball that can satisfy giving up three of your top prospects in baseball that are at a level of those three (22, 34, 55 per MLB)? A quick glance is like, the Guardians, Mariners, Phillies, Red Sox. Couple more teams could probably get away with two better prospects (Orioles, Padres) but seems like a tough barrier to entry to have that many teams be in the conversation. 

[Rex Buckingham]

I'd want a bit more of a track record if we're giving up Shaw for a pitcher. 

[Rcal10]

The problem to what Levine is saying is the top 3 prospects of each team can be very different. Sure, Sox might get the top 3 prospects of a bad system. But is that as good as something like Smith, Rojas and Triantos from the Cubs? 

[Bertz]

I wouldn't read too much into the specific names Levine chose.  He likely heard "three top prospects" and then listed off three of the Cubs' top prospects.  If the conversations are as nascent as he says there wouldn't be that much clarity around names.

I generally hold Shaw a level above the other Iowa bats and Brown a level above the other arms.  I think 3 "top prospects" is totally fair for Crochet, but Shaw or Brown getting included definitely impacts the third piece.  Like e.g. Caissie, Assad, and Triantos?  Cool bag him up.  Want to swap in Shaw for Caissie?  Triantos now becomes Cristian Hernandez or Johnny Long.

[Tryptamine]

25 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

If there's a positive, it tends to be that the asking price in the media (Shaw, Caissie, Triantos) tends to be the high-water negotiation price. Having ten total teams means that there's a market, but it's hard to determine how desperate each team is and how hard they're pushing. 

I imagine that if the starting price is there, you can maybe dicker down some. I don't think the final price will match the Levine, price. But it's good to hear some names, because it gives you a bit of a preview.

It would have to come way down though. I'm cool with Caissie and Triantos being involved but unless Shaw is going to become  someone like Hernandez or Southisene, I'm not real sure it's worth it.

[LBiittner]

I'm loving this rumor, c'mon Jeb 

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

It would have to come way down though. I'm cool with Caissie and Triantos being involved but unless Shaw is going to become  someone like Hernandez or Southisene, I'm not real sure it's worth it.

I mean, I think the Cubs aren't trading Shaw. Just a read on my end...I think they love Matt Shaw. But I could see "Shaw, Caissie and Triantos" turning into "Caissie, Triantos and Rojas". with an added kicker of like "Valez/Cruz" or maybe getting in a Wicks or Birdsell. 

Matt Shaw feels like the "start here, so I can get you down to my real ask" starting place. 

[KCCub]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I mean, I think the Cubs aren't trading Shaw. Just a read on my end...I think they love Matt Shaw. But I could see "Shaw, Caissie and Triantos" turning into "Caissie, Triantos and Rojas". with an added kicker of like "Valez/Cruz" or maybe getting in a Wicks or Birdsell. 

Matt Shaw feels like the "start here, so I can get you down to my real ask" starting place. 

I feel like Wicks would be going back in a trade like this, unless he just has no market. 

 

IF the Cubs swing this trade, are we expecting an extension? I'm torn on this. I'm typically always in favor of immediately extending a player like this when the trade is going to require this much prospect capital. However, I can't deny the injury/durability concerns. 

Do we like extending him an additional 4 years on top of his 2 Arb years, or do we just ride out the two years and go from there? 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, KCCub said:

I feel like Wicks would be going back in a trade like this, unless he just has no market. 

 

IF the Cubs swing this trade, are we expecting an extension? I'm torn on this. I'm typically always in favor of immediately extending a player like this when the trade is going to require this much prospect capital. However, I can't deny the injury/durability concerns. 

Do we like extending him an additional 4 years on top of his 2 Arb years, or do we just ride out the two years and go from there? 

I feel like this would be a situation in which the Cubs would be willing to extend him out. The question, I think is: what kind of extension is Crochet thinking? He's 25 and has two years of arbitration. The Cubs aren't going to give him 7+, IMO. They're risk averse as is with long term deals and has a TJS on his record. So would something like a contract that takes him to...say...29 or 30(where you buy out 2025 and 2026) while adding a few years work? If Crochet is cool with that, I think they would. But I don't think they're signing him past that.

[LBiittner]

3 minutes ago, KCCub said:

I feel like Wicks would be going back in a trade like this, unless he just has no market. 

 

IF the Cubs swing this trade, are we expecting an extension? I'm torn on this. I'm typically always in favor of immediately extending a player like this when the trade is going to require this much prospect capital. However, I can't deny the injury/durability concerns. 

Do we like extending him an additional 4 years on top of his 2 Arb years, or do we just ride out the two years and go from there? 

Shouldnt we do the same with Steele? 

[mul21]

Just now, LBiittner said:

Shouldn't we do the same with Steele? 

I think the age difference and more recent arm issues preclude an extension for Steele at the moment.