Winter Doldrums Thread

[chibears55]

44 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Look, I hope you are right. And I do believe they will add a pitcher. But I don’t know it for fact. And, frankly, neither do you. And this FO doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on following through with what they say they will do. Until they actually pull the trigger on a higher end staring pitcher, I am not going to claim to know they will do so. I am not down on the Cubs. I know there is still time left. And I do THINK they will add a pitcher of substance. Which is more than some people here think. But as I said, neither I or you KNOWS they will add a solid pitcher. We just know what they said they intend on doing. Kind of like when they said they intend on adding a starting pitcher at the deadline last year so they are keeping money to make that move. How did that work out?

I have been saying all along, I think they went into this offseason with a pretty set roster, especially on the position players side and basically a set rotation and with Steele due back in May/June.

So, we were likely to see Hoyer pretty much just add bench, bullpen, and depth players to the roster, which we have seen so far.

I just dont think hes going to sign anyone to a guarenteed multi year 20+ mil contract this offseason nor do I think he going to trade away his top prospects assets like Caissie, Mo, or even Shaw to add a top quality SP because with the expiring contracts he is likely going to need these kids for 2027.

I really believe Ricketts andHoyer plan is to retool/rebuild (whatever you wanna call it) everything again after the new CBA and start it with basically a clean payroll and their up and coming prospects and guys they have team control of on roster now.

Amaya, Busch, Swanson, Shaw, PCA, Horton, Assad, Steele are main players and all under team control for next 2-5yrs.

Then they have their top prospects that are ready or close to ready in next year or two in Caissie, Mo, Wiggins, Rojas, Ramirez, Birdsell, Hernandez.

So yea, when they didn't resign Tucker and Imanaga returned, i just never felt they were going to go out and spend to bring in players that were going to be difference makers but instead stick with who they have and sprinkle in a few guys for the pen and bench along with possibly SP depth, because their plan is to wait and see what the new CBA brings, have basically a clean payroll, and then build around from most of the players I listed above.

I want to be wrong and Hoyer has a shockingly big move coming soon but I wont hold my breath on it.

 

[chibears55]

42 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

It's actually why I wouldn't be surprised to see them re-sign Tucker if he's not signed by the start of Spring Training.

 

Theyll pull a Fowler and he'll come out onto the field during ST but itll be PCA who runs up to him and gives him the big hug like Rizzo did with Fowler 😅😅

10 years 

[Rcal10]

32 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

I have been saying all along, I think they went into this offseason with a pretty set roster, especially on the position players side and basically a set rotation and with Steele due back in May/June.

So, we were likely to see Hoyer pretty much just add bench, bullpen, and depth players to the roster, which we have seen so far.

I just dont think hes going to sign anyone to a guarenteed multi year 20+ mil contract this offseason nor do I think he going to trade away his top prospects assets like Caissie, Mo, or even Shaw to add a top quality SP because with the expiring contracts he is likely going to need these kids for 2027.

I really believe Ricketts andHoyer plan is to retool/rebuild (whatever you wanna call it) everything again after the new CBA and start it with basically a clean payroll and their up and coming prospects and guys they have team control of on roster now.

Amaya, Busch, Swanson, Shaw, PCA, Horton, Assad, Steele are main players and all under team control for next 2-5yrs.

Then they have their top prospects that are ready or close to ready in next year or two in Caissie, Mo, Wiggins, Rojas, Ramirez, Birdsell, Hernandez.

So yea, when they didn't resign Tucker and Imanaga returned, i just never felt they were going to go out and spend to bring in players that were going to be difference makers but instead stick with who they have and sprinkle in a few guys for the pen and bench along with possibly SP depth, because their plan is to wait and see what the new CBA brings, have basically a clean payroll, and then build around from most of the players I listed above.

I want to be wrong and Hoyer has a shockingly big move coming soon but I wont hold my breath on it.

 

I got 2 eye rolls suggesting we can’t KNOW they are going to add. This has to be deserving of way more than 2 eye rolls. . This is a much worse view of the off season. I do THINK they will add at least one significant piece. I just don’t know it as fact. 😬

[Neuby]

I can't see the Cubs beating that offer. 

[mk49]

That's more or less what Bregman is looking for, right?

 

[Post Count Padder]

If that's a legit offer then this one is over.

[Jason Ross]

I believe Marino Pepin has a pretty poor track record with these things. 

That said, yeah, at that price, I can't see the Cubs in on him. 

[Post Count Padder]

Fwiw, it seems Buster Olney went on a podcast and said the Red Sox made an offer to Bregman and he thinks they work out a deal. So it would back up the above report.

[Rcal10]

51 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I believe Marino Pepin has a pretty poor track record with these things. 

That said, yeah, at that price, I can't see the Cubs in on him. 

But that’s the problem with the FO. Why does everything have to come down to the Cubs saying no at a certain price? Why can’t they actually just get who they want? Doesn’t have to happen all the time. But just once in a while, if they want a guy and target him they should get him. That is what a major market team is supposed to do. I am not even saying it has to be Bregman. But, damn it, can’t it be someone? Why not Bichette. Why not an 8 year deal at $216M. $27M a year for 8 years. They would still be able to trade for a pitcher and have a good off season. Why not just get that done? If it cost more, than go higher. Pick a damn guy and get him.

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

But that’s the problem with the FO. Why does everything have to come down to the Cubs saying no at a certain price? Why can’t they actually just get who they want? Doesn’t have to happen all the time. But just once in a while, if they want a guy and target him they should get him. That is what a major market team is supposed to do. I am not even saying it has to be Bregman. But, damn it, can’t it be someone? Why not Bichette. Why not an 8 year deal at $216M. $27M a year for 8 years. They would still be able to trade for a pitcher and have a good off season. Why not just get that done? If it cost more, than go higher. Pick a damn guy and get him.

I agree the Cubs should pick someone and be irrational about him. Alex Bregman is not the player I would pick as that players so this is a moot point to me. 

I can see a reason why the Cubs would be interested in Bregman, but upper $20's and 5-6 years is my max with how the Cubs operate financially.  He is not the player I'd be battling for. 

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I agree the Cubs should pick someone and be irrational about him. Alex Bregman is not the player I would pick as that players so this is a moot point to me. 

I can see a reason why the Cubs would be interested in Bregman, but upper $20's and 5-6 years is my max with how the Cubs operate financially.  He is not the player I'd be battling for. 

I tend to agree with you here. Which is why I said “someone”. I would just like them to actually like someone and sign him. PERIOD!   
To me, that guy might be Bichette. He is 28 and has several years of being good. Target him and don’t take no for an answer. Get it done. They gave Dansby 7, they can do more for Bichette. And if not Bichette, then Tucker. Again, get it done. Don’t be outbid. Flex their financial muscles on someone. 

[ToolDRT]

That’s the quality Theo had that Jed never will. He understands when to throw value away and get the player. Not saying he’s always right. But he adapts to the market. I’d rather take that over someone who seems to set a market and never deviate. 

[Rcal10]

17 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

That’s the quality Theo had that Jed never will. He understands when to throw value away and get the player. Not saying he’s always right. But he adapts to the market. I’d rather take that over someone who seems to set a market and never deviate. 

I agree. I don’t have to love the signing. All of us can complain about the years or the dollar amount. But if the Cubs FO wants a guy they should get him. It shouldn’t be they take the last guy standing because he accepted their discount offer. 

[Hortonhearsawho]

2 hours ago, Neuby said:

I can't see the Cubs beating that offer. 

That explains why Bichette's name is coming up now for the Cubs. 

[JHBulls]

7 hours ago, ToolDRT said:

That’s the quality Theo had that Jed never will. He understands when to throw value away and get the player. Not saying he’s always right. But he adapts to the market. I’d rather take that over someone who seems to set a market and never deviate. 

This is what happened the last time Jed and the Ricketts had a meeting and Jed suggested to them that they should start spending more money than they have been for the last few years.

 

Edited January 3 by JHBulls

[thawv]

15 hours ago, mk49 said:

That's more or less what Bregman is looking for, right?

 

I've never heard any player announce what he's looking for.  Only media speculation and fans parroting those number(s).  So, we have no idea what he's looking for.  Only what the media speculates. 

[thawv]

14 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

But that’s the problem with the FO. Why does everything have to come down to the Cubs saying no at a certain price? Why can’t they actually just get who they want? Doesn’t have to happen all the time. But just once in a while, if they want a guy and target him they should get him. That is what a major market team is supposed to do. I am not even saying it has to be Bregman. But, damn it, can’t it be someone? Why not Bichette. Why not an 8 year deal at $216M. $27M a year for 8 years. They would still be able to trade for a pitcher and have a good off season. Why not just get that done? If it cost more, than go higher. Pick a damn guy and get him.

I know you don't want to hear this or will agree with this, but they don't try to win.  They are a value signing team, and not the best player signing team.  They don't even try to hide it.  Jed has said that he's risk averse and he looks for value signings.  His actions very much confirm what he says.  Winning is just not important to the Cubs.  

[Rcal10]

36 minutes ago, thawv said:

I know you don't want to hear this or will agree with this, but they don't try to win.  They are a value signing team, and not the best player signing team.  They don't even try to hide it.  Jed has said that he's risk averse and he looks for value signings.  His actions very much confirm what he says.  Winning is just not important to the Cubs.  

You continue with this narrative and you are wrong. It isn’t they don’t try to win. It is their belief that value signings will sustain longer success. Yes, they also put it as a business first. It doesn’t shock me that billionaires but money ahead of everything. But yiu go too far when you suggest they don’t want to win or don’t even try. They sorry, even if it isn’t how we want them to. And TBH, their motive to try is as businessmen if they do win,‘they make more money. I agree with a lot of what you say when it comes to the FO, I just think you go a little too far. 

[Derwood]

If winning is a result of value spending, they’re happy about it, but it’s not their primary concern 

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, Derwood said:

If winning is a result of value spending, they’re happy about it, but it’s not their primary concern 

Yes, they are businessmen first. The dollar profit comes first. But I also do believe the FO also believes you sustain winning by value spending. I do think they want to win. If for no other reason, it brings more money. 

[Brian707]

horsefeathers the Ricketts 

 

[Brian707]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

Yes, they are businessmen first. The dollar profit comes first. But I also do believe the FO also believes you sustain winning by value spending. I do think they want to win. If for no other reason, it brings more money. 

Saving money and getting fans in the seats is the #1 goal. If they strike gold with a team making a deep playoff run happens that's a plus

[thawv]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

You continue with this narrative and you are wrong. It isn’t they don’t try to win. It is their belief that value signings will sustain longer success. Yes, they also put it as a business first. It doesn’t shock me that billionaires but money ahead of everything. But yiu go too far when you suggest they don’t want to win or don’t even try. They sorry, even if it isn’t how we want them to. And TBH, their motive to try is as businessmen if they do win,‘they make more money. I agree with a lot of what you say when it comes to the FO, I just think you go a little too far. 

But value signings are not what wins.  That's pretty clear.  No??  Value signings almost always miss out on stars.  Stars win championship.  It's pretty clear and obvious that value signing are not the way to go if they are TRYING to win.  They aren't.  Do they need to have a value signing or two?  Of course!  That gives them money to get the big fish.  But they don't do that.  Until they do, I'm right. 

THEY WANT TO WIN!!!  So, let's put something that I never said to rest.  Yes, they always put money first.  I would do the same.  I'm just stating a fact.  They don't try to win.  They try to save and make money.  And that's what I would do if I owned the team.  But I don't own the team so I want them to sign the best players regardless of the cost.  

Edited January 3 by thawv

[thawv]

24 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Yes, they are businessmen first. The dollar profit comes first. But I also do believe the FO also believes you sustain winning by value spending. I do think they want to win. If for no other reason, it brings more money. 

It's more than obvious that the front office is wrong with their beliefs.  Yes they want to win.  Nobody in their right mind would they that they don't WANT to win.  

 

[Rcal10]

21 minutes ago, thawv said:

But value signings are not what wins.  That's pretty clear.  No??  Value signings almost always miss out on stars.  Stars win championship.  It's pretty clear and obvious that value signing are not the way to go if they are TRYING to win.  They aren't.  Do they need to have a value signing or two?  Of course!  That gives them money to get the big fish.  But they don't do that.  Until they do, I'm right. 

THEY WANT TO WIN!!!  So, let's put something that I never said to rest.  Yes, they always put money first.  I would do the same.  I'm just stating a fact.  They don't try to win.  They try to save and make money.  And that's what I would do if I owned the team.  But I don't own the team so I want them to sign the best players regardless of the cost.  

I don’t agree that it is that simple a fact that stars win championships. Not in baseball. Nationals won a WS AFTER their “star” left the team. The Cubs had a star last year in Tucker but lost the division to the Brewers. Who is their star? Sure, the Dodgers have won the last several years but teams have gone far without superstars. Of all the major sports, baseball is the one where you don’t need superstar on the team to win. Or, another way to put it is “a superstar on a team doesn’t mean they will win”. How long was Trout the best player in baseball and not in the playoffs. The only superstars that won last year were house on the Dodgers. There are many superstars that did not win. 
While you might never have said they don’t want to win, you have repeatedly said they don’t try to win. And I disagree. They do try. I don’t necessarily like the way they go about it anymore than you do. But just because they don’t do it like you think they should doesn’t mean they aren’t trying.
Honestly we aren’t that far apart on our views. As a fan I hate the way they go about building a team. I get just as frustrated as you do when they don’t spend to get the big guy. But I stop short of saying they don’t try to win. They do, but in their terms. And I also don’t like their terms.