Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[Dfan25]

6 minutes ago, Bertz said:

https://www.mlb.com/news/ian-happ-wins-arbitration-case-against-cubs

https://www.mlb.com/news/ian-happ-cubs-agree-to-extension

That was a short extensión with a player they drafted and developed .  This is a new player who they have no previous relationship whatsoever . Big difference .  
 

 

Edited January 10, 2025 by Dfan25

[Irrelevant Dude]

4 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

If he ends up leaving after 1 year, Hoyer should be fired for giving up a top prospect and 2 young players for him. 

It not like they're a Tucker's bat away from potentially going to a World Series or even the playoffs for that matter.

I'm not thrilled with how the Cubs have handled the offseason, but Tucker could absolutely be the difference that allows the Cubs to sneak into the playoffs in 2025.  With that said, I still agree with the premise that if you're going to make that deal, the Cubs need to do everything in their power to extend him.  Sadly, I think that power is above Jed's pay grade.

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

That was a short extensión with a player they drafted and developed .  This is a new player who they have no previous relationship whatsoever . Big difference .  

Based on what?

[chibears55]

Looks like the Cubs needed that 2.5 mil difference to get Matt Festa in that trade.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🤦‍♂️

[chibears55]

1 minute ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I'm not thrilled with how the Cubs have handled the offseason, but Tucker could absolutely be the difference that allows the Cubs to sneak into the playoffs in 2025.  With that said, I still agree with the premise that if you're going to make that deal, the Cubs need to do everything in their power to extend him.  Sadly, I think that power is above Jed's pay grade.

It not him that I doubt, it everyone else around him in the lineup that has question marks attached to them for what type of production we'll see out of them.

He could put up 1987 Dawson numbers but they could still just be a 500ish team with the lineup and pitching 

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

1. This is such small market mentality. The Chicago Cubs should, every year, run a salary next to, if not a bit above the LT. The LT is something that is getting larger each year.

...

2.  Is there risk? Sure. There's risk. There's literally risk getting in your car every day, there's risk getting out of bed, there's going to be risk signing someone to a 10-12 year deal. However, the risk here is the right risk. Just sign Kyle Tucker. Not only can the Cubs afford it, he's a really good player and a good bet to age well. There shouldn't be much of a debate here. If there is, you'll literally never sign a large contract. Ever. There is no such thing as a perfect player or a perfect contract. But Kyle Tucker is about as safe of a long term deal as you're going to find.

The Cubs are 3rd in revenue but were 9th in luxury tax payroll last year, and 10th in 2023.  The calculation changes if we have a higher payroll.  The FO can't think like the Dodgers or Yanks.  Its going to be a long time until having a 3.5 WAR player making 40m AAV looks ok.

Are we fine with signing Tucker to something like 10/400 if his WAR per age looks something like this?:

29 y/o - 5.0 WAR

30- 5.0

31- 4.5

32- 4.0

33- 3.5

34- 3.0

35- 2.5

36- 2.0

37- 1.5

38- 1.0

[Jason Ross]

I will say this; publicly this is a bad look. Regardless of where the Cubs are with Tucker, being just $2.5m away looks bad when you just acquired him. The Cubs have made it pretty clear the last few years that they don't care about what they seem publicly too often, but not a great look. I hope it's not a nickel/dime situation and the two sides come to some sort of positive agreement - whether it's long term or just one year right now. 

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

It not him that I doubt, it everyone else around him in the lineup that has question marks attached to them for what type of production we'll see out of them.

He could put up 1987 Dawson numbers but they could still just be a 500ish team with the lineup and pitching 

If Ian Happ and Suzuki are question marks, how many players in the league aren’t question marks 

[Irrelevant Dude]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

I will say this; publicly this is a bad look. Regardless of where the Cubs are with Tucker, being just $2.5m away looks bad when you just acquired him. The Cubs have made it pretty clear the last few years that they don't care about what they seem publicly too often, but not a great look. I hope it's not a nickel/dime situation and the two sides come to some sort of positive agreement - whether it's long term or just one year right now. 

Everything will be all better when they roll Sammy out at the Cubs Convention and introduce their new closer, Matt Festa.

[Dfan25]

10 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Based on what?

Going to let you figured it out by yourself . Not really in the mood to continue this . This kind  of horsefeathers really makes it hard to root for this organization .

[SOFNR]

There's definitely no way to take this as a good thing. I don't think it means disaster for an extension but it's a pretty weird way to start a relationship with a player you want to keep around a long time. 

[Stratos]

30 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Sportac projected 16.7m, and MLB Trade Rumors/Fangraphs guessed 15.8m.

[Jason Ross]

16 minutes ago, Stratos said:

The Cubs are 3rd in revenue but were 9th in luxury tax payroll last year, and 10th in 2023.  The calculation changes if we have a higher payroll.  The FO can't think like the Dodgers or Yanks.  Its going to be a long time until having a 3.5 WAR player making 40m AAV looks ok.

Are we fine with signing Tucker to something like 10/400 if his WAR per age looks something like this?:

29 y/o - 5.0 WAR

30- 5.0

31- 4.5

32- 4.0

33- 3.5

34- 3.0

35- 2.5

36- 2.0

37- 1.5

38- 1.0

First, I don't think his career is going to really look like that. That gets him 32 wins between 29 and 38. To compare, Justin Turner, who was probably never as good as Tucker is, picked up 34 wins from 29-38. So I think he's probably sitting at something closer to a 35-37 fWAR return on those 10 years. Either because his peak is a bit above 5, or because he ages more gracefully than you've given him credit for. Carlos Santana found a three win season at 38. Tucker's a pretty excellent player who's got an excellent health track record. I think he's going to age better than that.

So let's say, instead, it's 35-37 wins. I think that's perfectly fine. At 35 wins you're looking at $315m of value at $9m per fWAR and 37 gets you $333, It's a bit under, but you're also adding in some extra things - when you're talking 5+ fWAR players you're going to pay a little extra for that because it's consolidating wins. Secondly, real world $40m today will come down significantly in 8 or 9 years. Once you approach more than 37 wins, you're probably getting into "win" territory even if it doesn't look like it matches fWAR/$. The Cubs are a large market and sometimes you trade some surplus and efficiency for getting a good ass player. 

So yes. I would give Tucker a 10 year contract. And I don't really think twice.

[chibears55]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

If Ian Happ and Suzuki are question marks, how many players in the league aren’t question marks 

The rest of the lineup as a whole is a question mark...

Tucker a big upgrade over Bellinger, but  we don't know what to expect out of Amaya, Busch(2nd full season), Hoerner when he returns from IL, Shaw or whomever ends up at 3B,  and a full season of PCA.

We hope Happ, and Suzuki can have another good season and Swanson has a better one to help Tucker out, otherwise it could be like 2023 when Bellinger was putting up good numbers with not much help overall.

[Stratos]

How often do they go to arb with a player?  Especially a key player?  This seems uncommon.

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, Stratos said:

How often do they go to arb with a player?  Especially a key player?  This seems uncommon.

Happ's the last prominent player that I'm aware of and clearly the well wasn't poisoned.

I'd prefer this wasn't going down this way but most likely it doesn't matter.

[Stratos]

50 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

First, I don't think his career is going to really look like that. That gets him 32 wins between 29 and 38. To compare, Justin Turner, who was probably never as good as Tucker is, picked up 34 wins from 29-38. So I think he's probably sitting at something closer to a 35-37 fWAR return on those 10 years. Either because his peak is a bit above 5, or because he ages more gracefully than you've given him credit for. Carlos Santana found a three win season at 38. Tucker's a pretty excellent player who's got an excellent health track record. I think he's going to age better than that.

So let's say, instead, it's 35-37 wins. I think that's perfectly fine. At 35 wins you're looking at $315m of value at $9m per fWAR and 37 gets you $333, It's a bit under, but you're also adding in some extra things - when you're talking 5+ fWAR players you're going to pay a little extra for that because it's consolidating wins. Secondly, real world $40m today will come down significantly in 8 or 9 years. Once you approach more than 37 wins, you're probably getting into "win" territory even if it doesn't look like it matches fWAR/$. The Cubs are a large market and sometimes you trade some surplus and efficiency for getting a good ass player. 

So yes. I would give Tucker a 10 year contract. And I don't really think twice.

If you're going to cherry-pick literally the best-case scenario you could think of on the modern age regression distribution curve in Justin Turner, who's an aging freak of nature, and use that as your expectation for age regression you're going to wrong like 95% of the time.  If any FO does it their team is going to suck.

35-37 wins makes Tucker about a 61-63 career WAR player and a likely 1st-ballot HOF.  Joey Votto has 58 career WAR, was quite a bit better than Tucker at the same age, and aged pretty well at an easier position and didn't rely on stolen bases to pad his WAR (unlike Tucker).

I tried to argue in good faith and give a more typical regression pattern for Tucker, and that doesn't even assume injuries.  Sure maybe peaks at 6 WAR or similar.  I know you're never going to concede a point so whatever.

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, chibears55 said:

The rest of the lineup as a whole is a question mark...

Tucker a big upgrade over Bellinger, but  we don't know what to expect out of Amaya, Busch(2nd full season), Hoerner when he returns from IL, Shaw or whomever ends up at 3B,  and a full season of PCA.

We hope Happ, and Suzuki can have another good season and Swanson has a better one to help Tucker out, otherwise it could be like 2023 when Bellinger was putting up good numbers with not much help overall.

So now we have 3 non-question marks. How is hoerner a question mark? League average hitter, elite defense, like clockwork, his entire career. Same for Swanson. That’s 5 to me. How many non-question marks should a team have before it can be considered a contender? And that’s with granting you a Busch, but I guess in that case any team that has a second year player has a ‘question mark’

[JunkyardWalrus]

14 hours ago, Derwood said:

Aren't the Cubs famous for almost never going to arb?

Wrote the original post as a joke, guess the only joke was the Cubs organization. Things that make me sad with their consistency. 

Bringing the hot girl home from the club, only to haggle over cab fare, go home and jerk off to frugality.

The horsefeathers.

[Jason Ross]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

If you're going to cherry-pick literally the best-case scenario you could think of on the modern age regression distribution curve in Justin Turner, who's an aging freak of nature, and use that as your expectation for age regression you're going to wrong like 95% of the time.  If any FO does it their team is going to suck.

35-37 wins makes Tucker about a 61-63 career WAR player and a likely 1st-ballot HOF.  Joey Votto has 58 career WAR, was quite a bit better than Tucker at the same age, and aged pretty well at an easier position and didn't rely on stolen bases to pad his WAR (unlike Tucker).

I tried to argue in good faith and give a more typical regression pattern for Tucker, and that doesn't even assume injuries.  Sure maybe peaks at 6 WAR or similar.  I know you're never going to concede a point so whatever.

Instead of throwing personal barbs like "I know you're never going to concede a point" and being huffy. ,maybe it's best to ask "why did he pick Justin Turner?" 

Player A - 134 wRC+, 15.6 K%, 9.3 BB%, .193 ISO .317 BABIP  
Player B - 139 wRC+, 16 K%, 10.8 BB%, .242 ISO, .284 BABIP 

This is what happens when you assume I'm just cherry picking. I picked a player who had a similar career line, They also have somewhat similar swing decisions and the like, but at that point we're kind of getting to a point where you'll never find two players wo did exactly the same thing. But generally speaking, I picked similar players who did things in a similar style and who had to move off of their primary position in their later years to go play 1b/DH. One of those is Turner from 29-38 and the other is Tucker. It's to show what an aging curve of someone with a similar skillset looks like. 

Just last season, we had 38 year old Carlos Santana post a 3 fWAR season (who posted 20.8 fWAR, as a 1b/DH with a 111 wRC+ over those ages). Are we not assuming Tucker is capable of adding 13 fWAR over him? A player who doesn't play 1b/DH, who has been 20+ wRC+ points better and who offers base running value to boot? That's basically a little over one fWAR per-season to get there. Doesn't seem crazy, does it? Let's make it sound less crazy yet - through 27 years old, Santana had a 127 wRC+ and was worth 5.4 fWAR. Tucker has a 139 wRC+ and has been worth 15 more wins. 

This idea that I'm cherry picking Justin Turner is inane. In 2023, Paul Goldschmidt posted a 3.4 fWAR at 36 while JD Martinez and Brandon Belt at 35 posted 2+ fWAR seasons. Goldschmidt is another example of 31 fWAR so far through 29-37 (he's 38 next year) and he's been a 1b all his career. Positionally Tucker has an advantage. And just to keep the theme, Paul Goldschmidt's career line is really really similar to Tucker as well:

11.7 BB%, 23.1 K%, .213 ISO, 134 wRC+ (from 29-38)
12.7 BB%, 22.7 K%, .222 ISO, 139 wRC+ (career)

If you'd like a cautionary tale, someone like Andrew McCutcheon would be one. But I think it's important to point out - he fell off a cliff and his "fall of a cliff" without any major injury issue or the like" is pretty rare. It's either something akin to Bryant, where injuries hamper you and sap your ability (Tucker doesn't have these) or some sort of baseball flaw (hello, Javy Baez!). Sure, Tucker could McCutcheon, but it's pretty unlikely. Especially considering McCutcheon was was more reliant on his athleticism and his ability to BABIP in the mid .300's than Tucker. 

Secondly, low 60's fWAR does not guarantee a first ballot HoF. Larry Walker (68 fWAR), Gary Sheffield (62), Kenny Lofton (62) and Jim Edmonds (64.5) are all recent examples of OF'ers who hit the same fWAR win and either had to battle year over year to get into the HoF, or are still missing it. Putting Kyle Tucker in that type of a range is pretty normal for the arc he's on. It is also well short of being a "likely first ballot HoF". It puts him on the precipice of HoF but not necessarily in. 

Also, have you looked at Joey Votto's career line? 

145 wRC+, 15,6 BB%, 18.8 K%, .217 ISO

Man, only a stone's throw away from what Tucker's done! But he's going to take a fWAR hit because he's a 1b, and the bar for 1bover RF is much higher for offense. 

Yes, I think Kyle Tucker is worth $400m. I've used math,, I've used other player's who have a similar careers. I've found other 35+ year old players who had success. Yes, I picked the best players - Kyle Tucker is one of the best players in baseball - that's who we should compare him to. All you've posted is a hypothetical aging curve based on a random thought exercise and then got upset when I used a different one. 

If you're not going going to pay Kyle Tucker, a 28 year old with a career 139 wRC+, who has a great skillset for aging, who can move off his position down the road...then you're simply never going to pay anyone good. You'll consistently have to trade off of good players after five years and hope your MiLB side is consistently developing new ones.  If that's your style, hey, you do you, man. But I think it's some small market nonsense and the way I'd assume the Reds and the Pirates would act, not the Chicago Cubs.

[javy knows my name]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Instead of throwing personal barbs like "I know you're never going to concede a point" and being huffy. ,maybe it's best to ask "why did he pick Justin Turner?" 

Player A - 134 wRC+, 15.6 K%, 9.3 BB%, .193 ISO .317 BABIP  
Player B - 139 wRC+, 16 K%, 10.8 BB%, .242 ISO, .284 BABIP 

This is what happens when you assume I'm just cherry picking. I picked a player who had a similar career line, They also have somewhat similar swing decisions and the like, but at that point we're kind of getting to a point where you'll never find two players wo did exactly the same thing. But generally speaking, I picked similar players who did things in a similar style and who had to move off of their primary position in their later years to go play 1b/DH. One of those is Turner from 29-38 and the other is Tucker. It's to show what an aging curve of someone with a similar skillset looks like. 

Just last season, we had 38 year old Carlos Santana post a 3 fWAR season (who posted 20.8 fWAR, as a 1b/DH with a 111 wRC+ over those ages). Are we not assuming Tucker is capable of adding 13 fWAR over him? A player who doesn't play 1b/DH, who has been 20+ wRC+ points better and who offers base running value to boot? That's basically a little over one fWAR per-season to get there. Doesn't seem crazy, does it? Let's make it sound less crazy yet - through 27 years old, Santana had a 127 wRC+ and was worth 5.4 fWAR. Tucker has a 139 wRC+ and has been worth 15 more wins. 

This idea that I'm cherry picking Justin Turner is inane. In 2023, Paul Goldschmidt posted a 3.4 fWAR at 36 while JD Martinez and Brandon Belt at 35 posted 2+ fWAR seasons. Goldschmidt is another example of 31 fWAR so far through 29-37 (he's 38 next year) and he's been a 1b all his career. Positionally Tucker has an advantage. And just to keep the theme, Paul Goldschmidt's career line is really really similar to Tucker as well:

11.7 BB%, 23.1 K%, .213 ISO, 134 wRC+ (from 29-38)
12.7 BB%, 22.7 K%, .222 ISO, 139 wRC+ (career)

If you'd like a cautionary tale, someone like Andrew McCutcheon would be one. But I think it's important to point out - he fell off a cliff and his "fall of a cliff" without any major injury issue or the like" is pretty rare. It's either something akin to Bryant, where injuries hamper you and sap your ability (Tucker doesn't have these) or some sort of baseball flaw (hello, Javy Baez!). Sure, Tucker could McCutcheon, but it's pretty unlikely. Especially considering McCutcheon was was more reliant on his athleticism and his ability to BABIP in the mid .300's than Tucker. 

Secondly, low 60's fWAR does not guarantee a first ballot HoF. Larry Walker (68 fWAR), Gary Sheffield (62), Kenny Lofton (62) and Jim Edmonds (64.5) are all recent examples of OF'ers who hit the same fWAR win and either had to battle year over year to get into the HoF, or are still missing it. Putting Kyle Tucker in that type of a range is pretty normal for the arc he's on. It is also well short of being a "likely first ballot HoF". It puts him on the precipice of HoF but not necessarily in. 

Also, have you looked at Joey Votto's career line? 

145 wRC+, 15,6 BB%, 18.8 K%, .217 ISO

Man, only a stone's throw away from what Tucker's done! But he's going to take a fWAR hit because he's a 1b, and the bar for 1bover RF is much higher for offense. 

Yes, I think Kyle Tucker is worth $400m. I've used math,, I've used other player's who have a similar careers. I've found other 35+ year old players who had success. Yes, I picked the best players - Kyle Tucker is one of the best players in baseball - that's who we should compare him to. All you've posted is a hypothetical aging curve based on a random thought exercise and then got upset when I used a different one. 

If you're not going going to pay Kyle Tucker, a 28 year old with a career 139 wRC+, who has a great skillset for aging, who can move off his position down the road...then you're simply never going to pay anyone good. You'll consistently have to trade off of good players after five years and hope your MiLB side is consistently developing new ones.  If that's your style, hey, you do you, man. But I think it's some small market nonsense and the way I'd assume the Reds and the Pirates would act, not the Chicago Cubs.

This post almost drowns out the cacophony of stupid from the last 5 or 6 pages

[Rcal10]

Back to non Tucker talk, is it possible the Cubs filled heir pen with signing Thielbar and trading for Morgan and Festa? Is it possible they are doing this again without bringing in a dependable”ish” arm for some decent dollars? And if that is the case, where is this money they saved with Bellinger going to be spent? 

[Jason Ross]

16 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Back to non Tucker talk, is it possible the Cubs filled heir pen with signing Thielbar and trading for Morgan and Festa? Is it possible they are doing this again without bringing in a dependable”ish” arm for some decent dollars? And if that is the case, where is this money they saved with Bellinger going to be spent? 

I think you answered your second question with your first. I don't think the Cubs traded for Tucker to cobble together a BP of replacement level players and guys who they need to fix. Where is the money they saved going? Probably, in part, to someone like Kirby Yates or David Robertson - a dependable back end reliever who can be signed to a one year deal.

[Crusader]

1 hour ago, javy knows my name said:

This post almost drowns out the cacophony of stupid from the last 5 or 6 pages

It’s really not. He used someone’s prime numbers vs another’s career numbers between players that play different positions. A more thoughtful post would have been prime numbers vs other prime numbers for projections. Even then it’s not a great comparison because productivity with aging is so greatly impacted with chronic injuries even between people with similar skill sets. That’s why players being productive near their 40s is so rare. Not only do they need a good skill set, but they need to age in a way where they avoid any nagging/chronic injuries, even the type that might not lead to IR time, and projecting that is a guessing game with a ton of risk involved with overly complicated team based intellectual property formulas to try to assess any of this. To do any projections without knowing both players underlying yearly medicals is silly.

Edited January 10, 2025 by Crusader

[squally1313]

Yeah you can kinda squint and see the larger bullpen strategy here. It's honestly not much different than the previous strategies (throw a bunch of young arms at the wall and see what sticks, go through some growing pains in April/May and by the end of the year you're probably fine). I don't think it's a strategy they should necessarily get credit for, those early games count and they are pretty consistently back of the pack in first halves under Hoyer, but I also don't think you can or should solve a bullpen by throwing multiple 8-figure contracts at it. They just need to do a better job of developing from within in bulk, so that you're not having to stash arms in AAA as starter depth, etc. 

The 2025 version seems to be like, but Also With Funky Veterans. None of these guys we've picked up are good, took any sort of capital to acquire, or should have any sort of major league guarantee. But, statistically, do you hope 3-4 perform well in spring training and can pitch well out of the gate? And then another 3-4 pitch poorly, can sneak through waivers, and get themselves right in Iowa when that first group inevitably goes bad? Maybe? It all looks a lot better with a big name at the top of the list, but there's still money for that and names out there. 

For sake of the numbers exercise, you basically have Hodge/Miller at the back, let's (a little generously) assume another written in ink guy, and then five of: Pearson, Thompson, Morgan, Thielbar, Merryweather, Rob Z, Ben Brown, LIttle, Neely, Aria, Palencia, Roberts, Festa, Hollowell, Bickford. That's 15 names, while keeping Assad, Wicks, Horton, and Birdsell as starters 5-8 (hopefully 6-9). It's to the point where it's in the pitching infrastructures hands to elevate some skill sets and make the best decisions, knowing that ultimately any sort of results to judge them on are going to be extremely small samples and based mostly on sequencing luck.