Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[MarkBellhorn]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Since the pandemic season, see if you can pick out which is Flaherty and which is Boyd

A: 4.04/3.97 ERA/FIP, 15.1% K-BB%, 9.8% HR/FB, 5.3 IP/GS

B: 3.89/4.04 ERA/FIP, 17.2% K-BB%, 14.2% HR/FB, 5.4 IP/GS

The Cubs are paying Boyd hoping he can stay healthy enough to  have the success and health Flaherty has had the last two seasons. Flaherty is 29. Boyd 34.  

Edited February 3, 2025 by MarkBellhorn

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, MarkBellhorn said:

The Cubs are paying Boyd hoping he can stay healthy enough to  have the success and health Flaherty has had the last two seasons. Flaherty is 29. Boyd 34.  

All true. But here's a difference; almost all of Mathew Boyd's injuries stem from his arm which was surgically repaired (TJS) recently. So there's a reason to believe that Boyd. especially over a two year span (regardless of his age) will bounce back much more healthy. Reports were that the Cubs were not the only team after Boyd.

Similarly, it's important to note, the entirety of MLB organizations viewed Jack Flaherty enough of a risk that the best offer on the table, according to Flaherty, was a two-year contract (with opt out). Considering how good he was on paper, it's likely because teams have viewed his medicals as quite worrisome.

I think it's pretty telling what Jack Flaherty got, on paper and without hitting incentive markers, is very close to that of Mathew Boyd. 

[CubinNY]

24 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

All true. But here's a difference; almost all of Mathew Boyd's injuries stem from his arm which was surgically repaired (TJS) recently. So there's a reason to believe that Boyd. especially over a two year span (regardless of his age) will bounce back much more healthy. Reports were that the Cubs were not the only team after Boyd.

Similarly, it's important to note, the entirety of MLB organizations viewed Jack Flaherty enough of a risk that the best offer on the table, according to Flaherty, was a two-year contract (with opt out). Considering how good he was on paper, it's likely because teams have viewed his medicals as quite worrisome.

I think it's pretty telling what Jack Flaherty got, on paper and without hitting incentive markers, is very close to that of Mathew Boyd. 

This medical stuff is a red herring. The teams used his injury history to lower his value regardless of its validity because they could. We don't know what his "medicals" look like, but he's produced at a high level for long enough that injuries are part of his resume. He missed a few starts and needed injections in July. 

His risk of injury is higher than a pitcher without his history, but who would that be? Boyd's injuries are much more concerning as is his age. Saying he's likely to bounce back more healthy is just an opinion. And not one founded on evidence given Boyd's history. 

Edited February 3, 2025 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

36 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

This medical stuff is a red herring. The teams used his injury history to lower his value regardless of its validity because they could.

36 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Saying he's likely to bounce back more healthy is just an opinion. And not one founded on evidence given Boyd's history. 

 

[CubinNY]

46 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

 

look at their innings pitched in the last four years. 

[CubinNY]

47 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

 

nice selective quoting too, horsefeathers. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

why is the whole league colluding to overstate the injury risk for Flaherty specifically, when the pitching market has been white hot all offseason

[CubinNY]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

why is the whole league colluding to overstate the injury risk for Flaherty specifically, when the pitching market has been white hot all offseason

because they can. 

[Bertz]

Only 3 SPs in MLBTR's top 50 free agents have signed for less than MLBTR predicted:

- Max Scherzer was predicted at 1/$16M and got 1/$15M

- Shinnosuke Ogasara was predicted at 2/$12M and got 2/$3.5

- Flaherty was predicted at 5/$115M and got 3/$35M (easily reachable 2/$45M)

The rest got paid more, guys like Fried and Eovaldi and Buehler got a lot more.  Flaherty's not old.  He doesn't have a QO.  This isn't a situation like Jordan Montgomery last winter where Boras sacrificed him to try and get Blake Snell paid.

I think if you look at this situation critically for even a few moments your mind has to go to medicals.

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

nice selective quoting too, horsefeathers. 

I'm selectively quoting because I wanted to highlight the actual problem I had with your post. I don't really care if you think or have an opinion that teams are colluding to drive the price down or if you think or have an opinion that Boyd's future health is less trustworthy than Flaherty's. That's totally, people have all sorts of opinions and ideas around here, good and bad.

It's the definitive language you constantly use when you believe something, like it's an accepted fact, and then your tendency to get just incredibly pedantic in terms of facts, opinions, burdens of proof, etc etc when someone says something you don't agree with. Make your argument and support it with the underlying information and then respect other peoples' arguments when they're made in good faith (as the people here clearly are). Everything else is moving the goalposts at best. 

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, squally1313 said:

I'm selectively quoting because I wanted to highlight the actual problem I had with your post. I don't really care if you think or have an opinion that teams are colluding to drive the price down or if you think or have an opinion that Boyd's future health is less trustworthy than Flaherty's. That's totally, people have all sorts of opinions and ideas around here, good and bad.

It's the definitive language you constantly use when you believe something, like it's an accepted fact, and then your tendency to get just incredibly pedantic in terms of facts, opinions, burdens of proof, etc etc when someone says something you don't agree with. Make your argument and support it with the underlying information and then respect other peoples' arguments when they're made in good faith (as the people here clearly are). Everything else is moving the goalposts at best. 

I can accept that. The point I was trying to make, but maybe not well, is that Boyd is not in the same class as Flarharty as a pitcher in terms of health or quality. Other underlying factors that may partially account for the contract may not have to do with health but perhaps declining performance over the course of last year. He has a history of oblique and shoulder issues. His problem last year was his lower back. He didn't miss significant time last year, but injury is part of his history. Boyd is held together with spare parts and is in his mid-30s. They are not alike. 

[mul21]

13 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I can accept that. The point I was trying to make, but maybe not well, is that Boyd is not in the same class as Flarharty as a pitcher in terms of health or quality. Other underlying factors that may partially account for the contract may not have to do with health but perhaps declining performance over the course of last year. He has a history of oblique and shoulder issues. His problem last year was his lower back. He didn't miss significant time last year, but injury is part of his history. Boyd is held together with spare parts and is in his mid-30s. They are not alike. 

Neither are the contracts in spite of what people want to claim.  If Flaherty is healthy, his deal is 2/$45 because getting to 15 starts this year is a near given if he's not injured.  Boyd maxes out at 2/$29, less than 2/3 of what Flaherty can make.

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I can accept that. The point I was trying to make, but maybe not well, is that Boyd is not in the same class as Flarharty as a pitcher in terms of health or quality. Other underlying factors that may partially account for the contract may not have to do with health but perhaps declining performance over the course of last year. He has a history of oblique and shoulder issues. His problem last year was his lower back. He didn't miss significant time last year, but injury is part of his history. Boyd is held together with spare parts and is in his mid-30s. They are not alike. 

That's a fair argument. I'm guessing back in October if given the choice between those two players at those two contracts we would have collectively opted for Flaherty, and obviously neither dude has pitched since then. The arguments I'd make for Boyd are that, as referenced above, injuries can be fixed and put in the past, and that what he showed in the 50 2024 innings were of a higher quality than anything Flaherty has done in the last 5 years. I also think, as others have pushed back on, that you have to wonder why there wasn't a single team willing to offer more than what the Tigers did. There's no reason to think he took some sort of discount to play for a team that traded him 7 months ago. If there's some league wide collusion to point to injury issues, why'd the Cubs supposedly overpay for Boyd so early on? Or are we just back to 'Jed Hoyer Is Uniquely Bad At His Job'.

Like ultimately, using this Flaherty signing to relitigate the Boyd signing from November is just a way to always be mad about things. We couldn't sign Flaherty for 2/35 (or however you want to define those terms) back in November. It wasn't an option. Did you want them rolling into February with $50m of free cash and Taillon as their third starter? Would that have gone over well around here? 

[Rob]

41 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Did you want them rolling into February with $50m of free cash and Taillon as their third starter? Would that have gone over well around here? 

That's one thing that has me irked a bit. Most years, we hear all offseason that Jed is too passive and trying to wait out the market. Then he does something like snatches up Bellinger on the cheap and all is forgiven. (well, at least some is forgiven)

This year, Jed actually made an early move to grab a guy the projection systems adore. He gets pounced on for paying too much, and then the market goes absolutely haywire for starting pitching to the point that Boyd is probably an underpay based on what he would've received 4-8 weeks later. And now we're mad at Jed for striking early because that meant he couldn't wait out the market on Flaherty.

Pick a lane, people.

[Rcal10]

27 minutes ago, Rob said:

That's one thing that has me irked a bit. Most years, we hear all offseason that Jed is too passive and trying to wait out the market. Then he does something like snatches up Bellinger on the cheap and all is forgiven. (well, at least some is forgiven)

This year, Jed actually made an early move to grab a guy the projection systems adore. He gets pounced on for paying too much, and then the market goes absolutely haywire for starting pitching to the point that Boyd is probably an underpay based on what he would've received 4-8 weeks later. And now we're mad at Jed for striking early because that meant he couldn't wait out the market on Flaherty.

Pick a lane, people.

Edited February 3, 2025 by Rcal10

[CubinNY]

18 minutes ago, Rob said:

That's one thing that has me irked a bit. Most years, we hear all offseason that Jed is too passive and trying to wait out the market. Then he does something like snatches up Bellinger on the cheap and all is forgiven. (well, at least some is forgiven)

This year, Jed actually made an early move to grab a guy the projection systems adore. He gets pounced on for paying too much, and then the market goes absolutely haywire for starting pitching to the point that Boyd is probably an underpay based on what he would've received 4-8 weeks later. And now we're mad at Jed for striking early because that meant he couldn't wait out the market on Flaherty.

Pick a lane, people.

Boyd's redflags are large and loud. Maybe Flarhety's are as well. I don't think being decisive and snatching him up is a mark of genius. Hopefully, it pans out, but the best they can hope for is 100 innings. Something he hasn't done since before the pandemic and only accomplished four times in his career (giving him a 97 innings year b/c it's close enough). 

I think grabbing him has more to do with Cleveland than Chicago. 

Whatever, maybe Flarhety was never a target for them, only for fans and some people here, it appears. 

 

[Rob]

5 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Boyd's redflags are large and loud. Maybe Flarhety's are as well. I don't think being decisive and snatching him up is a mark of genius. Hopefully, it pans out, but the best they can hope for is 100 innings. Something he hasn't done since before the pandemic and only accomplished four times in his career (giving him a 97 innings year b/c it's close enough). 

I think grabbing him has more to do with Cleveland than Chicago. 

Whatever, maybe Flarhety was never a target for them, only for fans and some people here, it appears. 

 

I don't think it's a mark of genius either, and to be perfectly candid I have plenty of reservations about Boyd.

I'm just tired of seeing complaints about the timing of the moves. Timing the market is hard, and outside much of a GM's control most of the time. But insofar as much as it is within his control, that's pretty much the only skill Jed has reliably shown himself to be decent at. He waits out the market on guys like Bellinger (and potentially Bregman), and he jumps on guys like Boyd before the market suddenly explodes.

And at the end of the day, I care less about when we get to the point that the team is good and more about the team being good. If the Cubs were playing December baseball, I might care about that. But they aren't, and I don't.

[Rcal10]

20 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Hopefully, it pans out, but the best they can hope for is 100 innings. 

You say you get it, but then go right back to making a statement as if it is fact, when it is actually just your opinion. If Boyd is healthy why is 100 innings the BEST they can hope for? When he came back last year he had 8 starts and then the playoffs. He wasn’t skipped or he didn’t miss a start. Why can’t he start 30 games this year? He isn’t a kid. He doesn’t need to be coddled. He may only throw 100 innings. That might happen. But that’s  not the best they can hope for. They can hope for 30 starts and 160 innings. It might be more likely he throws closer to 100 innings than 160. But that is not the best they can hope for. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

43 minutes ago, Rob said:

I don't think it's a mark of genius either, and to be perfectly candid I have plenty of reservations about Boyd.

I'm just tired of seeing complaints about the timing of the moves. Timing the market is hard, and outside much of a GM's control most of the time. But insofar as much as it is within his control, that's pretty much the only skill Jed has reliably shown himself to be decent at. He waits out the market on guys like Bellinger (and potentially Bregman), and he jumps on guys like Boyd before the market suddenly explodes.

And at the end of the day, I care less about when we get to the point that the team is good and more about the team being good. If the Cubs were playing December baseball, I might care about that. But they aren't, and I don't.

I haven't switched lanes. I wanted Jed to go big game hunting and he set out and brought a squirrel back from the bug zapper.

 

I'm not gonna sit and bitch about this repeatedly but this move reminds me of Descalso. Again we are talking about a 33 year old with 900 career innings and an ERA barely under 5. He finally prevented runs at a good rate for what equates to about a month and some change and got 15M. i'd have much rather gone the Hoffman-SP convert route. When we signed him there were a lot of potential avenues that I liked more. I would have never given him that contract and I can easily see it turning into a ****** deal.  For that money I expect him to pitch 100-120 innings and the odds of achieving that are not great.

Edited February 3, 2025 by We Got The Whole 9

[CubinNY]

35 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

You say you get it, but then go right back to making a statement as if it is fact, when it is actually just your opinion. If Boyd is healthy why is 100 innings the BEST they can hope for? When he came back last year he had 8 starts and then the playoffs. He wasn’t skipped or he didn’t miss a start. Why can’t he start 30 games this year? He isn’t a kid. He doesn’t need to be coddled. He may only throw 100 innings. That might happen. But that’s  not the best they can hope for. They can hope for 30 starts and 160 innings. It might be more likely he throws closer to 100 innings than 160. But that is not the best they can hope for. 

last year he pitched 39 innings, the year before that 71, the year before that 12. You be the judge. 

Edited February 3, 2025 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

last year he pitched 39 innings, the year before that 71, the year before that 12. You be the judge. 

While in normal settings where you're comparing like statistics or output or whatever it would be dumb to include minor league and playoff numbers, in the context of 'how much did he actually pitch' it's worth noting that he pitched 72 innings last year total (21.2 in the minors, 39.2 in the MLB regular season, 11.2 in the playoffs), and that's all from the middle of July on.

To your point: it's very much not ideal. But for as bad as his injury record has been, he essentially made 16 starts on schedule from the all star break through the ALCS. I'm not going to pretend to know why he 'only' averaged a shade under 5 IP/start in his 8 regular season starts. Pessimistically it's because they were babying him and he wasn't close to being built up, optimistically it's because Cleveland had a bullpen of death and they leaned heavily on it (he had the second most innings pitched for the team from his debut through the rest of the season). 

Are we going to get 180? Almost certainly not. Would 125 surprise me? Also no. 

[Rcal10]

18 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

last year he pitched 39 innings, the year before that 71, the year before that 12. You be the judge. 

Well in 23 he had TJS which ended his season at 71 innings. Then he didn’t come back for 14 months or so, limiting his ‘24 innings to 39 plus playoffs. Before the surgery, in ‘22 he had arm issues. If the TJS is a success, as many are these days, that would mean his arm should be fine. So why would 100 innings be his best possible outcome. It may be the eventual outcome. I am not arguing that. It is the hyperbole suggesting that is the best they can hope for, that I disagree with. I would guess the Cubs would expect a bit more. He isn’t a kid. So if he is injury free he will make his starts. And since his arm is now surgically repaired there is reason to believe he may not get insured this year. 

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

While in normal settings where you're comparing like statistics or output or whatever it would be dumb to include minor league and playoff numbers, in the context of 'how much did he actually pitch' it's worth noting that he pitched 72 innings last year total (21.2 in the minors, 39.2 in the MLB regular season, 11.2 in the playoffs), and that's all from the middle of July on.

To your point: it's very much not ideal. But for as bad as his injury record has been, he essentially made 16 starts on schedule from the all star break through the ALCS. I'm not going to pretend to know why he 'only' averaged a shade under 5 IP/start in his 8 regular season starts. Pessimistically it's because they were babying him and he wasn't close to being built up, optimistically it's because Cleveland had a bullpen of death and they leaned heavily on it (he had the second most innings pitched for the team from his debut through the rest of the season). 

Are we going to get 180? Almost certainly not. Would 125 surprise me? Also no. 

This is where I am with him. And if it was them babying him a little, that is understandable. Maybe he wasn’t full on ready, and they had an amazing one. I would think the bubble wrap should be off him this year. Sure, he might not make 30 starts. But he might. No reason to assume 100 innings is his best possible outcome. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think there's room for nuance here.  The Verducci effect is not a law of the universe, and especially with a post-prime pitcher(with plenty of full-seasons in his past) on a 2 year deal there isn't as much caution required.  If all other indications are good, there's no reason to think that the Cubs are going to shut down Boyd to rest for an extended period.

That said, they're a team with aspirations on making the playoffs, and there's reason to be uncertain if Boyd's effectiveness(moreso than his health in the 'is he injured?' sense) will last through a playoff run if you don't take any preventative measures.  I don't think we have a concrete sense of how significant those measures will be, but we already know that for the back half of the rotation that Counsell likes to shuffle to give SP 5(or more) days rest when he can.  We know that there will likely be depth in the pen or at Iowa eager to get a shot at some starts.  And we know that as we hit the dog days of summer they'll likely have 3 starters who they'll lean on innings-wise which lessens any dependence on Boyd.  

 

With that in mind, I think the 'plan' for Boyd is likely to treat him like a college starter, get him ~25 starts by essentially having him go once a week.  That would put him around 130 IP and have the runway to go another 20ish in the playoffs as needed.  Whether that plan lives up to reality, whether because of Boyd's health/effectiveness or the health/effectiveness of the rest of the staff that changes the dependency on Boyd, we can't know today.

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think there's room for nuance here.  The Verducci effect is not a law of the universe, and especially with a post-prime pitcher(with plenty of full-seasons in his past) on a 2 year deal there isn't as much caution required.  If all other indications are good, there's no reason to think that the Cubs are going to shut down Boyd to rest for an extended period.

That said, they're a team with aspirations on making the playoffs, and there's reason to be uncertain if Boyd's effectiveness(moreso than his health in the 'is he injured?' sense) will last through a playoff run if you don't take any preventative measures.  I don't think we have a concrete sense of how significant those measures will be, but we already know that for the back half of the rotation that Counsell likes to shuffle to give SP 5(or more) days rest when he can.  We know that there will likely be depth in the pen or at Iowa eager to get a shot at some starts.  And we know that as we hit the dog days of summer they'll likely have 3 starters who they'll lean on innings-wise which lessens any dependence on Boyd.  

 

With that in mind, I think the 'plan' for Boyd is likely to treat him like a college starter, get him ~25 starts by essentially having him go once a week.  That would put him around 130 IP and have the runway to go another 20ish in the playoffs as needed.  Whether that plan lives up to reality, whether because of Boyd's health/effectiveness or the health/effectiveness of the rest of the staff that changes the dependency on Boyd, we can't know today.

This is fair. It also backs my comment that 100 innings is not the best case scenario for Boyd. If he is effective he can go 130 or more innings. And be fine for a playoff run.