Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[Connor McConnor]

14 hours ago, ToolDRT said:

I think Jed is attempting to win the division this year to save his job. That’s it. 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. 
 

 

These two tropes:

1) "The GM is just trying to save his job" 

2)"The owner is a greedy idiot who thinks the fans are dopes"

are what every meatball, in every city, for every sport, trots out as some sort of original insight into whatever team he wants to bitch about.  

[mul21]

4 minutes ago, ErniesHands said:

These two tropes:

1) "The GM is just trying to save his job" 

2)"The owner is a greedy idiot who thinks the fans are dopes"

are what every meatball, in every city, for every sport, trots out as some sort of original insight into whatever team he wants to bitch about.  

Agreed on number one, but we have explicit evidence of number 2 from the Cubs convention last weekend. "we're just trying to break eve" is the biggest load of horsefeathers I've ever heard when we all know that they're bringing in massive amounts of revenue related to owning the Cubs even if that money isn't directly being made off the team itself.

[ToolDRT]

16 minutes ago, ErniesHands said:

These two tropes:

1) "The GM is just trying to save his job" 

2)"The owner is a greedy idiot who thinks the fans are dopes"

are what every meatball, in every city, for every sport, trots out as some sort of original insight into whatever team he wants to bitch about.  

Seems like you’re dense enough to buy just what Ricketts wants you to. Congrats, you’re the ignorant fan he loves so much. 

[ToolDRT]

7 hours 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.

It’s not contradictory at all. If you believe we’re genuinely interested in signing Tucker long term that’s certainly an opinion. I’m not of that belief. Not remotely. So I’d rather use a cam smith in a deal for someone that could be here longer than one season. I’m not sure where people are coming up with the notion that I don’t want jed to be aggressive. It’s not remotely true. I don’t want him to just be aggressive enough to win a division and save his job. I don’t want him here. I think he’s awful. Whether or not we’d be going after Nick Pivetta is not even the complete argument either. It’s that he dipped over a tax line on a team that didn’t have a bullpen AND on two year deals for Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. 
 

Not only does that call into question his ability to assess talent (as both were dropped in the first year of those ridiculous two year deals), but it also leaves me pining for a pobo who can practice basic math skills. It was just like when dale tallon/stan bowman killed the Blackhawks by forgetting to tender rfa contracts. Dude is paid way too well and has rode the nepotism train long enough to not make such silly mistakes. 

[CubinNY]

Regardless of whether they win I think Jed's job is safe.

EDIT: Unless he wants to go somewhere else. I could see him teaming up with Theo and Breslow in Boston.

Edited January 22, 2025 by CubinNY

[ToolDRT]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Regardless of whether they win I think Jed's job is safe.

 

curious, what makes you think that? Not disagreeing at all, just want your take. 

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Regardless of whether they win I think Jed's job is safe.

Thats an interesting and unexpected take by you. I think if they don’t win he is gone. That said, his replacement will be a similar type guy who will be a Ricketts yes man. 

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, ToolDRT said:

 

curious, what makes you think that? Not disagreeing at all, just want your take. 

His behaivor with regard to the Cubs. He's the same as he ever was. He's looking for value and willing to pass on better players who he thinks are making too much money for too long. He and Tom might as well be the same person, or at least Tom has his hand up Jed's ass and is working his mouth. He's Tommy Boy's Tommy Boy

[Bertz]

14 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

It’s not contradictory at all. If you believe we’re genuinely interested in signing Tucker long term that’s certainly an opinion. I’m not of that belief. Not remotely. So I’d rather use a cam smith in a deal for someone that could be here longer than one season. I’m not sure where people are coming up with the notion that I don’t want jed to be aggressive. It’s not remotely true. I don’t want him to just be aggressive enough to win a division and save his job. I don’t want him here. I think he’s awful. Whether or not we’d be going after Nick Pivetta is not even the complete argument either. It’s that he dipped over a tax line on a team that didn’t have a bullpen AND on two year deals for Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. 
 

Not only does that call into question his ability to assess talent (as both were dropped in the first year of those ridiculous two year deals), but it also leaves me pining for a pobo who can practice basic math skills. It was just like when dale tallon/stan bowman killed the Blackhawks by forgetting to tender rfa contracts. Dude is paid way too well and has rode the nepotism train long enough to not make such silly mistakes. 

What do you think would be different about this offseason/2025 if the team had come in just below the tax line in 2024?

[squally1313]

12 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

It was just like when dale tallon/stan bowman killed the Blackhawks by forgetting to tender rfa contracts. Dude is paid way too well and has rode the nepotism train long enough to not make such silly mistakes. 

'Killed' the Blackhawks? That happened in 2009. Hopefully all of Jed's terrible awful mistakes only lead to 3 championships in the next 6 years.

14 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

AND on two year deals for Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. 
 

Not only does that call into question his ability to assess talent (as both were dropped in the first year of those ridiculous two year deals)

Can you point to a GM/POBO that doesn't have any bad two year (or worse) signings in their history? We're coming up on over 2 years now since those deals were made....if that's the worst you can point to (and I'd argue it's not, it's his farm system development/drafting from like 2016-2022).....that's not really all that bad?

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

It’s not contradictory at all. If you believe we’re genuinely interested in signing Tucker long term that’s certainly an opinion. I’m not of that belief. Not remotely. So I’d rather use a cam smith in a deal for someone that could be here longer than one season. I’m not sure where people are coming up with the notion that I don’t want jed to be aggressive. It’s not remotely true. I don’t want him to just be aggressive enough to win a division and save his job. I don’t want him here. I think he’s awful. Whether or not we’d be going after Nick Pivetta is not even the complete argument either. It’s that he dipped over a tax line on a team that didn’t have a bullpen AND on two year deals for Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. 
 

Not only does that call into question his ability to assess talent (as both were dropped in the first year of those ridiculous two year deals), but it also leaves me pining for a pobo who can practice basic math skills. It was just like when dale tallon/stan bowman killed the Blackhawks by forgetting to tender rfa contracts. Dude is paid way too well and has rode the nepotism train long enough to not make such silly mistakes. 

Well, I guess I have two questions for you:

1. Other than your own personal pessimism, what exactly has Jed said or done to make us think he won't put forth an earnest attempt at signing Tucker? Jed made some quotes directly suggesting how he sees a long term contracts, and I don't think they jibe with the idea they won't try. I get that he hasn't signed a $400m contract before, but then again, so has almost no other team in baseball. With that logic, he'll only sign with the Dodgers or the Mets.

I also think it's important to remember that Hoyer is not someone whos played hard and fast with prospects. It's easy to say he's just trying to save his job as a dismiss of that, but considering the rest of the offseason, Im not sure there's much to suggest that he's just going ham to save himself. 

2. Given the payroll restrictions from Ricketts, what would you suggest a more aggressive offseason to have looked like?

Like I said, I'm not here to bang on a drum for Jed and say his offseason is amazing. I have some gripes. But it also feels a bit like you're coming from an overly pessimistic space on it, too, especially on Tucker. It's cool to be pessimistic, and respec that not every has to be peaches and cream. I'll give you I didn't like Mancini and Barnhart, but both were also low level gambles and probably haven't done any real damage. But I also think it's important to realize when we go a bit down the dark path without much to support the doom and the gloom, too, ya know?

[ToolDRT]

1 minute ago, squally1313 said:

'Killed' the Blackhawks? That happened in 2009. Hopefully all of Jed's terrible awful mistakes only lead to 3 championships in the next 6 years.

Can you point to a GM/POBO that doesn't have any bad two year (or worse) signings in their history? We're coming up on over 2 years now since those deals were made....if that's the worst you can point to (and I'd argue it's not, it's his farm system development/drafting from like 2016-2022).....that's not really all that bad?

Hawks run ended earlier and was much more inconsistent than it would have been without that mistake. And now look at them. They left Stan in charge after that obvious mishap (rumors persist that it was actually his mistake and dale took the fall because of Scotty) and we’re still a mess. If someone shows you a gross level of incompetence don’t just ignore it. 
 

No, not at all. They all make mistakes. Who knows, maybe the Michael Busch trade is a big mistake in 5 years. No one should really blame Jed if that turns out to be the case though. It was a calculated move and kinda a crapshoot. We needed help at 1st and he got it. But come on, everyone knew the Barnhart and Mancini moves were awful right away. You can get away with that if you’re the dodgers who will spend out of their mistakes. But when you have an owner who is pretending to break even every year, you have to be better than that. Jed knows his payroll each year. Those two contracts very likely got us saddled with Hector Nerris. 

[ToolDRT]

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Well, I guess I have two questions for you:

1. Other than your own personal pessimism, what exactly has Jed said or done to make us think he won't put forth an earnest attempt at signing Tucker? Jed made some quotes directly suggesting how he sees a long term contracts, and I don't think they jibe with the idea they won't try. 

I also think it's important to remember that Hoyer is not someone whos played hard and fast with prospects. It's easy to say he's just trying to save his job as a dismiss of that, but considering the rest of the offseason, Im not sure there's much to suggest that he's just going ham to save himself. 

2. Given the payroll restrictions from Ricketts, what would you suggest a more aggressive offseason to have looked like?

Like I said, I'm not here to bang on a drum for Jed and say his offseason is amazing. I have some gripes. But it also feels a bit like you're coming from an overly pessimistic space on it, too, especially on Tucker. It's cool to be pessimistic, and respec that not every has to be peaches and cream. But I also think it's important to realize when we go a bit down the dark path without much to support the doom and the gloom, too, ya know?

Fair questions. 
1. I’m going with the reports from last month and marlin corroborating them about long term deals/the network not being as profitable. All that crap, to me, sends a pretty clear message that this is just a one year move. I’m not sure which one of jed or Tom is anti mega deal. I suspect it’s both at this point. But whatever the case may be, I’m assuming that past line of thinking continues forward with Tucker. I could not want to be more wrong here. Tucker signs long term and all my negativity towards this offseason evaporates. 
 

2. I think you have to win those tanner scott type deals at this point. If Chicago was his first choice as rumored, we lost him over what, six million dollars? 4 of that is going to Colin freaking Rea. Who is just superfluous at this point. Also, we’ve been rumored to make a trade for a cost controlled pitcher for how many offseasons now? I’d like to see that finally accomplished. It just feels contradictory to me to acquire Kyle Tucker and then support that move with Boyd and Rea. 

[ToolDRT]

I digress. Maybe I’m too hard on the front office. I’m just tired of the Chicago cubs value shopping in February. 

[Rcal10]

29 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

His behaivor with regard to the Cubs. He's the same as he ever was. He's looking for value and willing to pass on better players who he thinks are making too much money for too long. He and Tom might as well be the same person, or at least Tom has his hand up Jed's ass and is working his mouth. He's Tommy Boy's Tommy Boy

I agree he is doing exactly what Tom wants him to do. But I think Tom will throw him under the bus if they don’t win. He will blame someone. Then sign another guy who will agree to be the same kind of president of baseball ops Jed has been. An owner yes man. 

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

Fair questions. 
1. I’m going with the reports from last month and marlin corroborating them about long term deals/the network not being as profitable. All that crap, to me, sends a pretty clear message that this is just a one year move. I’m not sure which one of jed or Tom is anti mega deal. I suspect it’s both at this point. But whatever the case may be, I’m assuming that past line of thinking continues forward with Tucker. I could not want to be more wrong here. Tucker signs long term and all my negativity towards this offseason evaporates. 
 

2. I think you have to win those tanner scott type deals at this point. If Chicago was his first choice as rumored, we lost him over what, six million dollars? 4 of that is going to Colin freaking Rea. Who is just superfluous at this point. Also, we’ve been rumored to make a trade for a cost controlled pitcher for how many offseasons now? I’d like to see that finally accomplished. It just feels contradictory to me to acquire Kyle Tucker and then support that move with Boyd and Rea. 

I think the Cubs lost him as soon as the Dodgers wanted him. I fully believe had the cubs upped their offer to match the Dodgers, the Dodgers would have just added more. Cubs were not going to win that battle. 

[ToolDRT]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

I think the Cubs lost him as soon as the Dodgers wanted him. I fully believe had the cubs upped their offer to match the Dodgers, the Dodgers would have just added more. Cubs were not going to win that battle. 

That is possible too. I guess it just depends if Chicago was his first option. Seems like we went low on years until the last minute and it was just too late at that point. 

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

I digress. Maybe I’m too hard on the front office. I’m just tired of the Chicago cubs value shopping in February. 

I don't think you have to digress. I get it - part of the problem is that I don't think the team (and whether you want to point to Jed, Tom, whatever) has really earned benefits of the doubt. The Cubs don't spend like they need to, and regardless of whether you feel like another tear down was warranted, or in how they've gone about it, not going to the playoffs in a full-season since 2018, with the only playoff appearance between a quick-out in the Covid shortened year...the team hasn't won enough either.

To go back to your other response - I do think and believe the Cubs will earnestly try to sign Kyle Tucker. I think Jed's words were very calculated when he talked about why they didn't go after Soto, and I think it was entirely about Kyle Tucker (before we knew they were going after it). I'm not sure they'll get it done, it's hard to do those things, but I do think they traded for him with the intent to use the 10 month window as a very strong push (though one more slowly than I think a lot of fans wish it was).

I do agree on point two that I'm not in love with the plan on the rotation. BP wise...Tanner Scott on paper is really good, but like all relievers, he comes with a pretty major "but" - and it's that two short years ago he was a highly flawed pitcher and that RP's are volatile. I won't give "we tried" points, but I also wonder if there was an ere of inevitability with Scott to the Dodgers. At $18m AAV, were the Cubs ever going to be able to match that under PRT? Conversely, was that the ceiling for LAD, or would they have just bumped it to $20m? Scott would have been pretty cool, but I'm not entirely convinced they can't get pretty close to repeating that with a RP that they can tweak that "but" a little (whatever "but" they come with) for a lot less. 

[squally1313]

16 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

But come on, everyone knew the Barnhart and Mancini moves were awful right away.

The fact that we needed to go out in the market to plug those holes is the much more damning part of all of this, in my opinion. I pulled up the FG 2023 transaction tracker, sorted by first basemen signed. It's bleak. Jose Abreu is a famous disaster, Brandon Drury got 2/17 to produce 0.6 fWAR over 2 seasons, with much of his value coming from his versatility. Rizzo got 2/40 to give the Yankees 0.6 fWAR. Carpenter got 2/12 for -0.6. Jace Peterson, 2/10, 0 fWAR. Josh Bell, 2/33, 0.3 fWAR. Wil Myers got 1/8, put up -0.7 and is out of baseball. 

You end up with Carlos Santana (1/7, 1.5 fWAR in 2023) and Brandon Belt (1/9, 2.2 fWAR). But both of those guys were worse hitters, and older, than Trey Mancini in 2022 (Santana was also worse in 2021). Sure, we could have used those wins in a season we missed out on the playoffs by like 2 games or whatever.

But I think my overall point is that when you're forced to go fishing in those waters, you're setting yourself up for a mistake. We had to go sign a first baseman (and it was dire enough we went and picked up Hosmer too), there were no good ones out there, you end up in the drecks of what I listed above. We had a year and a half from the Rizzo trade to find just any bat first guy in the system who you'd want to reward/challenge with major league ABs coming off a 74-88 2022 season, and....we didn't have it. It's gotten better. On Opening Day we'll most likely have 4 spots in the line up covered by guys making the league minimum, two of them coming off 2+ win seasons, another the favorite to win ROY. But the development was bleak for a long while there. 

[Bertz]

One thing that's worth understanding is teams aren't dumb anymore.  Okay aside from the Rockies teams aren't really dumb anymore. 

If a team does something that makes you go "why would they do that?" the best reaction is to dig into why they might have done that.  There's invariably a reasonable explanation.

[Post Count Padder]

Idk how legit these guys are but it would be an odd thing to make up. Guess this is our 3rd catcher going into the season, barring an opt-out. Seems like a handy guy to have around.

 

[Rex Buckingham]

Aram is legit

[Bertz]

11 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

Seems like a handy guy to have around.

 

Is this intentional?  Because if so bravo if not boy do I have some funny news for you.

[Post Count Padder]

1 minute ago, Bertz said:

Is this intentional?  Because if so bravo if not boy do I have some funny news for you.

Oh it's super intentional. 

[Post Count Padder]

Not a bad get if it's a MiLB contract. If he's requiring a 40-man spot then we truly are dumpster diving.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2025 by Post Count Padder