Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[Stratos]

10 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

But how for the life of me anyone could see the point in paying any price to acquire a SEASON of Kyle Tucker when we have no business believing we’re a singular move away from a World Series is beyond me. But feel free to enjoy the absolutely uselessly good-to-great season he’ll enjoy at Wrigley this year. While also not putting a dent in the goal of making us World Series contenders. Because yes, two things can be true at the same time. Shocker. 

If we're in the playoffs that makes us World Series contenders by default.  We were a 83 win team last year.  The Tucker/Bellinger moves can nab us about another 4 wins on paper if the Cubs spend the savings.

[ToolDRT]

1 minute ago, Stratos said:

If we're in the playoffs that makes us World Series contenders by default.  We were a 83 win team last year.  The Tucker/Bellinger moves can nab us about another 4 wins on paper if the Cubs spend the savings.

I mean semantics, but do you really see us going to the World Series as we stand now? I don’t.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

26 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

At risk of you threatening to ban me again (I know that’s your go to power move) I’ll say you could always address me directly. I didn’t know you could be conservative in your free agent acquisitions and also make a simultaneously boneheaded trade as well. Only one of those things is possible? I’ve always prefaced by saying he’s a great move if he’s resigned.
 

But how for the life of me anyone could see the point in paying any price to acquire a SEASON of Kyle Tucker when we have no business believing we’re a singular move away from a World Series is beyond me. But feel free to enjoy the absolutely uselessly good-to-great season he’ll enjoy at Wrigley this year. While also not putting a dent in the goal of making us World Series contenders. Because yes, two things can be true at the same time. Shocker. 

Do you see how painting Jed as overly conservative in his spending, to the point you say Tucker is "clearly not going to be here in 12 months" is at odds with also painting Jed as making a "last ditch attempt to save [his] ass" in trading for Tucker?  Not that you can't make multiple types of mistakes, but the underlying behavior motivating those moves(overly conservative, reckless to save his job) are essentially the opposite.  

This is what I mean when I say that his flaws are whatever people want them to be in order to be mad at him, because at a minimum you are dramatically underselling the odds Tucker is in Chicago in 2026 and beyond.  Nothing is guaranteed, but teams who earnestly try to keep top of market FA under the qualifying offer have a very good success rate, and Tucker getting to play on a good Cubs team undercuts some of the more common reasons it doesn't work out(an uncompetitive team, a tiny market, etc)

But to the Tucker decision specifically, you never get the chance to make the perfect move, and that barometer of being a 'single move away from the world series' is arbitrary and counterproductive.  The Cubs right now project as the 3rd best team in the NL and the clear favorite for their division.  Every season matters, not making decisive moves while you have a core in place for the next couple years is frittering away the good things that have happened to get the team to this level, just because it's not a guaranteed long term deal or that the team doesn't project to be a 95 win monster doesn't mean that you can't make moves that prioritize next year more than the 2-3 years afterwards.  

I don't love every move Jed has made this offseason, in particular I was not without reservations in trading for Tucker because of the cost and what pressures it put on the rest of the offseason.  Like Bertz, I think he's being a bit too risky with the rotation given Wrigley is likely to revert away from being an extreme pitcher's park.  But I also can see how there's a path to things working out and tradeoffs from having gone a different way.  If you honestly are thinking that Jed is a 'moron' and 'can't for the life of you see how anyone could see the point' in trading for Kyle Tucker, have a little more curiosity.

[ToolDRT]

14 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Do you see how painting Jed as overly conservative in his spending, to the point you say Tucker is "clearly not going to be here in 12 months" is at odds with also painting Jed as making a "last ditch attempt to save [his] ass" in trading for Tucker?  Not that you can't make multiple types of mistakes, but the underlying behavior motivating those moves(overly conservative, reckless to save his job) are essentially the opposite.  

This is what I mean when I say that his flaws are whatever people want them to be in order to be mad at him, because at a minimum you are dramatically underselling the odds Tucker is in Chicago in 2026 and beyond.  Nothing is guaranteed, but teams who earnestly try to keep top of market FA under the qualifying offer have a very good success rate, and Tucker getting to play on a good Cubs team undercuts some of the more common reasons it doesn't work out(an uncompetitive team)

But to the Tucker decision specifically, you never get the chance to make the perfect move, and that barometer of being a 'single move away from the world series' is arbitrary and counterproductive.  The Cubs right now project as the 3rd best team in the NL and the clear favorite for their division.  Every season matters, not making decisive moves while you have a core in place for the next couple years is frittering away the good things that have happened to get the team to this level, just because it's not a guaranteed long term deal or that the team doesn't project to be a 95 win monster doesn't mean that you can't make moves that prioritize next year more than the 2-3 years afterwards.  

I don't love every move Jed has made this offseason, in particular I was not without reservations in trading for Tucker because of the cost and what pressures it put on the rest of the offseason.  Like Bertz, I think he's being a bit too risky with the rotation given Wrigley is likely to revert away from being an extreme pitcher's park.  But I also can see how there's a path to things working out and tradeoffs from having gone a different way.  If you honestly are thinking that Jed is a 'moron' and 'can't for the life of you see how anyone could see the point' in trading for Kyle Tucker, have a little more curiosity.

I didn’t read all this because tired. But to the first paragraph it’s really not at odds at all. I think Jed is attempting to win the division this year to save his job. That’s it. He only needs one season of Kyle Tucker to accomplish that. Because for as dumb as I think Jed is, I think Tom is as greedy and thinks his this fan base is largely made up of nimrods. My fear and expectation is that we win the division this season, get bounced immediately by the Phillies, Mets, padres, dodgers and Tom excitedly declares “ look what we did! And thats more than enough to warrant a Jed Hoyer extension. 
 

And look, I think our revenue to spending ratio is as appalling as the rest of you think it is. But the truth is also that 230 million is more than enough to win a division wherein you’re the only large market team. That not withstanding, one of the other reasons this offseason is a miss for me is because we backed ourselves into a corner by going over the luxury tax by what, a whopping 3 million or so? That mistake is limiting free agent options as well. 
 

I’m not trying to be rude, but certainly I can aspire for a POBO that doesn’t make such a needless and ridiculous mistake. I can’t quite remember the details of their deals, but how much were we paying Trey Mancini and Tucker Barnhart to not play for us last year? 

Edited January 22, 2025 by ToolDRT

[squally1313]

- TT writes a 400 word response in an effort to actually engage

- 'I didn't read all this because tired'

-Proceeds to write 250 word response

-Also, please give me the respect of addressing me directly

[ToolDRT]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

- TT writes a 400 word response in an effort to actually engage

- 'I didn't read all this because tired'

-Proceeds to write 250 word response

-Also, please give me the respect of addressing me directly

I don’t respect you though. I think you’re the worst poster here. You act like an edge lord who just desperately needs someone to tell him he’s cool because that validation has never come in real life. Thanks for counting my word total though. That’s not creepy at all. 

[Jason Ross]

6 hours ago, ToolDRT said:

I didn’t read all this because tired. But to the first paragraph it’s really not at odds at all. I think Jed is attempting to win the division this year to save his job. That’s it. He only needs one season of Kyle Tucker to accomplish that. Because for as dumb as I think Jed is, I think Tom is as greedy and thinks his this fan base is largely made up of nimrods. My fear and expectation is that we win the division this season, get bounced immediately by the Phillies, Mets, padres, dodgers and Tom excitedly declares “ look what we did! And thats more than enough to warrant a Jed Hoyer extension. 
 

And look, I think our revenue to spending ratio is as appalling as the rest of you think it is. But the truth is also that 230 million is more than enough to win a division wherein you’re the only large market team. That not withstanding, one of the other reasons this offseason is a miss for me is because we backed ourselves into a corner by going over the luxury tax by what, a whopping 3 million or so? That mistake is limiting free agent options as well. 
 

I’m not trying to be rude, but certainly I can aspire for a POBO that doesn’t make such a needless and ridiculous mistake. I can’t quite remember the details of their deals, but how much were we paying Trey Mancini and Tucker Barnhart to not play for us last year? 

It feels contradictory to worry about the ~10m or so that we got dinged on the LT for Barnhart/Mancini and then be upset that the team traded a recent draftee for a top-10 position player in baseball, doesn't it? On one hand, we're upset that the team doesn't put forth the effort and resources to bring in transformative talents, instead, playing on the fringes for a "raise the floor" type of addition, while on the other, being upset when the Cubs do just that. To TT's point, it feels a bit "damned if Jed does, damned if he doesn't", no? 

Secondly, as has been discussed, the LT overage played almost 0 role in this offseason. The Cubs haven shown while they'll toe the LT line, there's no blowing past it. Meaning that the overall spending is likely the exact same. Per Ricketts (who, yeah, I know), per Sharma, per Mooney, per Trueblood, it's been reported and said that the team can spend more than they are right now and payroll won't be significantly reduced (~$10m or so max). That $10m isn't changing the offseason, and the Cubs aren't shying away from Nick Pivetta because it'd cost a wee bit of IFA money and an extra 5th round pick. They just weren't going to spend on a QO player to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I've got qualms with the offseason. You'll have to let me put aside my disdain for Ricketts here - sadly I've come to accept his vision for the Cubs spending as the truth here, so while I think he sucks, he won't factor into this. Where I do find some faults are in places like the rotation. Mathew Boyd and Colin Rea as the rotational additions is too much risk for me and think the team has, to date, missed an opportunity to really upgrade there. 

Generally speaking, I think it's been a good offseason. There's more to be done, they still need a bench bat and an RP. I won't swear off any chance of signing Tucker - in fact, they probably are the betting favorite if we're being honest, though, with the caveat of "we'll see". The team feels deeper, the lineup feels stronger, and at the worst, the Cubs have the young pitching depth to fill in if need be, or at least until the deadline when the team can make another splash play.

[Andy]

9 hours ago, ToolDRT said:

I mean semantics, but do you really see us going to the World Series as we stand now? I don’t.

Atlanta Braves 2021

Arizona Diamondbacks 2023

The unstoppable titan LA Dodgers were down 2-1 in a best of 5 playoff series 3 freaking months ago

It really doesn't matter if you think you see the Cubs going to the World Series (I don't either). Baseball has created a complete crapshoot postseason where if you get in the playoffs you have a legitimate chance.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Andy

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

It feels contradictory to worry about the ~10m or so that we got dinged on the LT for Barnhart/Mancini and then be upset that the team traded a recent draftee for a top-10 position player in baseball, doesn't it? On one hand, we're upset that the team doesn't put forth the effort and resources to bring in transformative talents, instead, playing on the fringes for a "raise the floor" type of addition, while on the other, being upset when the Cubs do just that. To TT's point, it feels a bit "damned if Jed does, damned if he doesn't", no? 

Secondly, as has been discussed, the LT overage played almost 0 role in this offseason. The Cubs haven shown while they'll toe the LT line, there's no blowing past it. Meaning that the overall spending is likely the exact same. Per Ricketts (who, yeah, I know), per Sharma, per Mooney, per Trueblood, it's been reported and said that the team can spend more than they are right now and payroll won't be significantly reduced (~$10m or so max). That $10m isn't changing the offseason, and the Cubs aren't shying away from Nick Pivetta because it'd cost a wee bit of IFA money and an extra 5th round pick. They just weren't going to spend on a QO player to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I've got qualms with the offseason. You'll have to let me put aside my disdain for Ricketts here - sadly I've come to accept his vision for the Cubs spending as the truth here, so while I think he sucks, he won't factor into this. Where I do find some faults are in places like the rotation. Mathew Boyd and Colin Rea as the rotational additions is too much risk for me and think the team has, to date, missed an opportunity to really upgrade there. 

Generally speaking, I think it's been a good offseason. There's more to be done, they still need a bench bat and an RP. I won't swear off any chance of signing Tucker - in fact, they probably are the betting favorite if we're being honest, though, with the caveat of "we'll see". The team feels deeper, the lineup feels stronger, and at the worst, the Cubs have the young pitching depth to fill in if need be, or at least until the deadline when the team can make another splash play.

I agree with this, provided they do sign or trade for a back end pen arm and at one or two solid bench bats. They have t done that yet. Other than that yiu said basically my thoughts. If they do that, my only criticism would be I would have rather spend a little more and gotten a better starter than Rea. But maybe the Cubs expect Brown or Horton to give them 100 quality innings and didn’t feel they  needed more than Rea at this time.🤷

[Bertz]

This doesn't feel firm enough to post as a rumor, but from this morning's Athletic

Quote

That leaves the Cubs still casting a wide net in their search for bullpen help. The group under consideration this winter, according to league sources briefed on the team’s discussions, has included Kenley Jansen, David Robertson, Ryan Pressly, Phil Maton, Ryne Stanek and Brooks Raley. For context, though, the list of relievers the Cubs have seriously evaluated easily reaches double digits.

And paired with this

Quote

Bregman’s high salary on a theoretical short-term deal would not fit in the current budget for baseball operations, according to sources briefed on the team’s plans. At least not in a way that would also allow the front office to effectively acquire a closer, deepen the bullpen, fill out the bench, remain open to other opportunities and stay in the range of the $241 million luxury-tax threshold.

"Add a closer" and "deepen the bullpen" as two separate items on the to-do list?  I guess don't be surprised if they add two RPs of substance?  I wonder if the second has to be a Raley who would be stashed on the IL, or if Keegan Thompson is pure placeholder at this point.

[CubinNY]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree with this, provided they do sign or trade for a back end pen arm and at one or two solid bench bats. They have t done that yet. Other than that yiu said basically my thoughts. If they do that, my only criticism would be I would have rather spend a little more and gotten a better starter than Rea. But maybe the Cubs expect Brown or Horton to give them 100 quality innings and didn’t feel they  needed more than Rea at this time.🤷

I could be wrong, but Horton hasn't pitched 100 innings combined from college to his pro career.

Edit: Sorry, it's 176.

Edited January 22, 2025 by CubinNY

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, Bertz said:

This doesn't feel firm enough to post as a rumor, but from this morning's Athletic

And paired with this

"Add a closer" and "deepen the bullpen" as two separate items on the to-do list?  I guess don't be surprised if they add two RPs of substance?  I wonder if the second has to be a Raley who would be stashed on the IL, or if Keegan Thompson is pure placeholder at this point.

It kind of feels like the bullpen doesn't lack depth. Even if Thompson is a placeholder (and I kind of think he is, myself) there's...kind of a breaking point in terms of numbers and it feels like the Cubs are there. But what do I know?

Would really hope that the team works on culling that a bit if they're going to keep adding. 

[Bertz]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

It kind of feels like the bullpen doesn't lack depth. Even if Thompson is a placeholder (and I kind of think he is, myself) there's...kind of a breaking point in terms of numbers and it feels like the Cubs are there. But what do I know?

Would really hope that the team works on culling that a bit if they're going to keep adding. 

Yeah I put pen to paper on it under Trueblood's article yesterday because it's getting kind of ridiculous.

 

Barring injury we don't know about, there's one spot open on the MLB pitching staff before you start having to cut guys.  And Iowa's not a lot better unless the plan is to push legitimate prospects back down to Tennesee just to hoard arms.  

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Bertz said:

Yeah I put pen to paper on it under Trueblood's article yesterday because it's getting kind of ridiculous.

 

Barring injury we don't know about, there's one spot open on the MLB pitching staff before you start having to cut guys.  And Iowa's not a lot better unless the plan is to push legitimate prospects back down to Tennesee just to hoard arms.  

This all goes hand in hand with my biggest gripe on the offseason, and it's just that I feel like the Cubs took the "depth" mandate a bit too far? It almost feels like in lieu of a bigger, more substantiative addition on the pitching side, the Cubs have been more than content with a "more the merrier" approach instead. Which, IMO, isn't the same impact. The hope is that the Cubs can ride out the first half and more easily target a more impactful player at the deadline, but it also feels a bit risky to go into an unknown market hoping there's something there you want at a better price than you could have gotten in, say, January. 

Does feel like a little extra is riding on the Horton/Brown/Wicks/Birdsell group than I'd have wanted. And hell, I'm the prospect guy!

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This all goes hand in hand with my biggest gripe on the offseason, and it's just that I feel like the Cubs took the "depth" mandate a bit too far? It almost feels like in lieu of a bigger, more substantiative addition on the pitching side, the Cubs have been more than content with a "more the merrier" approach instead. Which, IMO, isn't the same impact. The hope is that the Cubs can ride out the first half and more easily target a more impactful player at the deadline, but it also feels a bit risky to go into an unknown market hoping there's something there you want at a better price than you could have gotten in, say, January. 

Does feel like a little extra is riding on the Horton/Brown/Wicks/Birdsell group than I'd have wanted. And hell, I'm the prospect guy!

Yep. Signing Rea instead of going after a guy to slot ahead of Tailon suggest either they do feel good about a few of the guys you mentioned or they are just hoping to hang in contention until the deadline and get a starting pitcher at 1/3 the cost. Sure hope it is the former. But very well can be strictly a money saving move. 

[CubinNY]

27 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This all goes hand in hand with my biggest gripe on the offseason, and it's just that I feel like the Cubs took the "depth" mandate a bit too far? It almost feels like in lieu of a bigger, more substantiative addition on the pitching side, the Cubs have been more than content with a "more the merrier" approach instead. Which, IMO, isn't the same impact. The hope is that the Cubs can ride out the first half and more easily target a more impactful player at the deadline, but it also feels a bit risky to go into an unknown market hoping there's something there you want at a better price than you could have gotten in, say, January. 

Does feel like a little extra is riding on the Horton/Brown/Wicks/Birdsell group than I'd have wanted. And hell, I'm the prospect guy!

Isn't the 1st quarter of the season the toughest on this year's schedule?

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

Isn't the 1st quarter of the season the toughest on this year's schedule?

On paper, yes. Which I guess could be used to defend two different arguments. If you want to say that injuries are more likely to happen during ramp up, having a more deep and defined staff for the beginning of the year (and when other teams may also be experiencing ramp up or injuries) could be a good thing. Or that you'll be less likely to have to rely on rookies in the early part of the season. It could also be argued that starting the season off with the most impact is best as you play the hardest part of your schedule. 

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This all goes hand in hand with my biggest gripe on the offseason, and it's just that I feel like the Cubs took the "depth" mandate a bit too far? It almost feels like in lieu of a bigger, more substantiative addition on the pitching side, the Cubs have been more than content with a "more the merrier" approach instead. Which, IMO, isn't the same impact. The hope is that the Cubs can ride out the first half and more easily target a more impactful player at the deadline, but it also feels a bit risky to go into an unknown market hoping there's something there you want at a better price than you could have gotten in, say, January. 

Does feel like a little extra is riding on the Horton/Brown/Wicks/Birdsell group than I'd have wanted. And hell, I'm the prospect guy!

In the bullpen I'm largely fine with it.  When things were really bad last year part of why they couldn't pull out of the skid is that guys at Iowa like Palencia were also hurt and lesser prospects like Bailey Horn were struggling, so alternative options were to just ride it out or try our hand with the Colten Brewers and Thomas Pannone's of the world.  As much as I chuckle at this and wonder how they're going to juggle it, it is nice to have someone like Ethan Roberts as like RP15 instead of RP9 or RP10.

The rotation...yeah I still don't like the Rea decision.  But I guess charitably if they want to really lean on depth and optionality Rea's ability to adapt and swing could prove valuable for maximizing how many starts from our younger more talented arms the team can fit into the schedule.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

On paper, yes. Which I guess could be used to defend two different arguments. If you want to say that injuries are more likely to happen during ramp up, having a more deep and defined staff for the beginning of the year (and when other teams may also be experiencing ramp up or injuries) could be a good thing. Or that you'll be less likely to have to rely on rookies in the early part of the season. It could also be argued that starting the season off with the most impact is best as you play the hardest part of your schedule. 

Can’t wait to see this site when the Cubs start off 9-14. It is going to be so much fun😥

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I just keep thinking 'diminishing returns' when it comes to a 2nd reliever.  It forces you to do something that in the abstract you don't want to do.  Send Assad to Iowa, cut Merryweather, option Hodge/Brown/Morgan.  You actually have to do 2 of those things(assuming the closer/1st reliever means Keegan is done), so even if injuries remove the need for another, you're still doing something suboptimal.

[Petrey10]

Further explanation…. I don’t hate the Tucker acquisition. I actually do like it!

 

but it’ll look terrible if it’s only one year. I don’t feel the deal needs done today. I’m just saying if it doesn’t get done this is a LOPSIDED trade.

 

 

and no I don’t see us doing anything this year. Maybe we play a wildcard game and probably get beat. 
 

furthermore Shaw could Be our 2b too… maybe he currently is the 2nd best in minors at 3b and that’s prolly where he ends up this year. But there’s real possibility Shaw at 2b and Cam at 3B was prolly our best long term option. For 2026-ish time frame. Allowing us to invest in the rotation and bullpen even more. 
 

 

 

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I just keep thinking 'diminishing returns' when it comes to a 2nd reliever.  It forces you to do something that in the abstract you don't want to do.  Send Assad to Iowa, cut Merryweather, option Hodge/Brown/Morgan.  You actually have to do 2 of those things(assuming the closer/1st reliever means Keegan is done), so even if injuries remove the need for another, you're still doing something suboptimal.

I feel they have enough middle relief options. I agree they don’t need to add another AND get a back end guy. Just get the back end guy. If they want to sign Raley and stash him until July as injured, that is fine. But I see no need for another middle relief pitcher at the start of the year.

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, Petrey10 said:

Further explanation…. I don’t hate the Tucker acquisition. I actually do like it!

 

but it’ll look terrible if it’s only one year. I don’t feel the deal needs done today. I’m just saying if it doesn’t get done this is a LOPSIDED trade.

 

 

and no I don’t see us doing anything this year. Maybe we play a wildcard game and probably get beat. 
 

furthermore Shaw could Be our 2b too… maybe he currently is the 2nd best in minors at 3b and that’s prolly where he ends up this year. But there’s real possibility Shaw at 2b and Cam at 3B was prolly our best long term option. For 2026-ish time frame. Allowing us to invest in the rotation and bullpen even more. 
 

 

 

As a thought exercise, do you think the Soto trade was bad for the Yankees? 

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, Petrey10 said:

Further explanation…. I don’t hate the Tucker acquisition. I actually do like it!

 

but it’ll look terrible if it’s only one year. I don’t feel the deal needs done today. I’m just saying if it doesn’t get done this is a LOPSIDED trade.

 

 

and no I don’t see us doing anything this year. Maybe we play a wildcard game and probably get beat. 
 

furthermore Shaw could Be our 2b too… maybe he currently is the 2nd best in minors at 3b and that’s prolly where he ends up this year. But there’s real possibility Shaw at 2b and Cam at 3B was prolly our best long term option. For 2026-ish time frame. Allowing us to invest in the rotation and bullpen even more. 
 

 

 

I am sure you just misspoke, but there is not one WC game.

[Petrey10]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I am sure you just misspoke, but there is not one WC game.

Correct ***series