Jon Heyman: Cubs one of teams interested in Bo Bichette.

[Cuzi]

At this point, any connection made to the Cubs and a top tier FA should be taken as nothing more than a reporter with no knowledge of the situation using logic that a large market should be in that pot, or an agent exaggerating the interest to up the other offers on the table.

This organization is as passive as it gets. So going out there and "getting their guy" doesn't exist. It's simply how far down the list do they have to go before the player is on his last resort.

Edited January 3 by Cuzi

[Tryptamine]

I mean, when was the last time the Cubs went out got the one of the top guys in FA? You could argue Dansby, but before that offseason most had him as the 4th best SS available. It has obviously worked out pretty well. Is it Jason Heyward back in 2016?

[Cuzi]

1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

I mean, when was the last time the Cubs went out got the one of the top guys in FA? You could argue Dansby, but before that offseason most had him as the 4th best SS available. It has obviously worked out pretty well. Is it Jason Heyward back in 2016?

Not even going to argue Dansby. He was the last of the 4 heads remaining and the Cubs were just about the last of his market. It's worked out on paper, so yay. Although I would argue you would hope for a better bat for that kind of money.

Yu Darvish was kind of a similar situation.

Jason Heyward took less money to come to the Cubs.

I would say Jon Lester is the last true "this is our guy and he's going to be a member of the Cubs." I believe the rumors surrounding other offers for Lester came in $20M under the Cubs offer.

Edited January 3 by Cuzi

[Stratos]

13 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Link here

0.5% chance the Cubs sign Bichette.  His market would have to fall flat and with his age and the Jays interest I don't see them winning a bid.

The most likely FA's the Cubs sign will be the guys who are most undervalued by this year's market according to the Cubs and it's impossible to say who that will be because we don't know what other teams are willing to bid on players.  Last year it was guys like Boyd and Rea, and before that it was guys like Swanson, Suzuki, Imanaga etc.  Bellinger was an exception because they didn't have a CF and he was the only good one on the market at the time.

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

I mean, when was the last time the Cubs went out got the one of the top guys in FA? You could argue Dansby, but before that offseason most had him as the 4th best SS available. It has obviously worked out pretty well. Is it Jason Heyward back in 2016?

Darvish was the consensus top free agent of the 2017-2018 class and was the highest paid too, albeit in a weak free agent class. 

[Butch Gernant]

Bargain basement hunting, That is our Cubbies,

[thawv]

9 hours ago, Cuzi said:

At this point, any connection made to the Cubs and a top tier FA should be taken as nothing more than a reporter with no knowledge of the situation using logic that a large market should be in that pot, or an agent exaggerating the interest to up the other offers on the table.

This organization is as passive as it gets. So going out there and "getting their guy" doesn't exist. It's simply how far down the list do they have to go before the player is on his last resort.

This is 100% how I feel.  We are rarely every even "in" on the top prospects.  Fans actually believe that they are in on the top guys.  They're not.  They take whoever's left, or whoever will sign with them.  It's just not how to win championships

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, Cuzi said:

Not even going to argue Dansby. He was the last of the 4 heads remaining and the Cubs were just about the last of his market. It's worked out on paper, so yay. Although I would argue you would hope for a better bat for that kind of money.

Yu Darvish was kind of a similar situation.

Jason Heyward took less money to come to the Cubs.

I would say Jon Lester is the last true "this is our guy and he's going to be a member of the Cubs." I believe the rumors surrounding other offers for Lester came in $20M under the Cubs offer.

How are Swanson and Darvish similar? Are you saying that the Cubs didn’t pay a bidding war tax for either? Darvish was the consensus top free agent from his class and the most expensive, albeit in a very weak one.

Theo handed out 3 9 figure deals in addition to Kimbrel, Zobrist and Lackey. Swanson and Bellinger at a discount are Jed’s “big” free agent splashes. Theo was always in the mix. 

Edited January 3 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

How are Swanson and Darvish similar? Are you saying that the Cubs didn’t pay a bidding war tax for either? Darvish was the consensus top free agent from his class and the most expensive, albeit in a very weak one.

Theo handed out 3 9 figure deals in addition to Kimbrel, Zobrist and Lackey. Swanson and Bellinger at a discount are Jed’s “big” free agent splashes. Theo was always in the mix. 

I agree Dansby and Darvish are not similar. But the point being made was discussing the last time the Cubs actually won a bidding war on someone. If you want to use Darvish instead of Lester that is fine. Still a long time ago. It is about time the Cubs come on top on an actual bidding war for someone. If they aren’t going to spend on a pitcher!or a big bat (and right now it is seeming the only way they do is if a guy drops to them) they should have won the bidding on Williams. He was said to want to play for the Cubs over the Mets. We have waited all off season seeing small moves so they can save money. All with the belief they will spend it on someone. And maybe they still will. But why does it have to be in who dropped to them. Go win a bidding war on someone. For once I want to hear the Cubs are in on someone and not have the next part of the sentence be “if his market crashes”. I don’t even care who at this point. Ranger Suarez, Bregman, Bichette, Tucker, Bellinger, Valdez, even Gallen, if they really feel one of these guys can help the team, go get him. 

[Geographyhater8888]

56 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree Dansby and Darvish are not similar. But the point being made was discussing the last time the Cubs actually won a bidding war on someone. If you want to use Darvish instead of Lester that is fine. Still a long time ago. It is about time the Cubs come on top on an actual bidding war for someone. If they aren’t going to spend on a pitcher!or a big bat (and right now it is seeming the only way they do is if a guy drops to them) they should have won the bidding on Williams. He was said to want to play for the Cubs over the Mets. We have waited all off season seeing small moves so they can save money. All with the belief they will spend it on someone. And maybe they still will. But why does it have to be in who dropped to them. Go win a bidding war on someone. For once I want to hear the Cubs are in on someone and not have the next part of the sentence be “if his market crashes”. I don’t even care who at this point. Ranger Suarez, Bregman, Bichette, Tucker, Bellinger, Valdez, even Gallen, if they really feel one of these guys can help the team, go get him. 

Darvish certainly wasn’t as high profile as Lester. If Swanson and Darvish were similar that means that the market wasn’t wasn’t competitive for Darvish is either which is what I wanted him to clarify.

Bichette is only 27 too and if Nico walks at the end of the year he’s your long term answer. Yes. Jed’s MO is “if you can’t get the years or $ you want check back in with me”. That happened with Bregman and of course he was $5 million short and wouldn’t offer a player option, costing them roughly 3 wins.

What’s frustrating is the Cubs have a solid foundation of complimentary players. A team serious about competing walks away with Tucker, Bichette and trades Shaw for a starting pitcher. No need to to spend $25 million/year on Boyd and Rae either when Fried was available last offseason. A strong back end rotation helps you win regular season games when all 5 starters are used.

[Hot Sauce]

15 hours ago, Petrey10 said:

Love this…. Bo is our best option at 3B currently. 

I wouldn't get too excited about the possibility.

[Cuzi]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

How are Swanson and Darvish similar? Are you saying that the Cubs didn’t pay a bidding war tax for either? Darvish was the consensus top free agent from his class and the most expensive, albeit in a very weak one.

Theo handed out 3 9 figure deals in addition to Kimbrel, Zobrist and Lackey. Swanson and Bellinger at a discount are Jed’s “big” free agent splashes. Theo was always in the mix. 

Darvish's market fell to where the Cubs could actually afford him.

[Geographyhater8888]

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce said:

I wouldn't get too excited about the possibility.

I’m surprised the Pirates or A’s GMs don’t use Jed’s tactic. “Reach out to us if your client gets half the years and $ he’s looking for”. 

[thawv]

3 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I’m surprised the Pirates or A’s GMs don’t use Jed’s tactic. “Reach out to us if your client gets half the years and $ he’s looking for”. 

Maybe they do!!  That's why they don't sign the best players either.  All 3 teams shy away from the best players because they cost the most money. 

 

[Geographyhater8888]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Darvish's market fell to where the Cubs could actually afford him.

Cubs can afford a number of free agents. Theo was willing to actually sign them unlike Jed.

[Cuzi]

Just now, Geographyhater8888 said:

Cubs can afford a number of free agents. Theo was willing to actually sign them unlike Jed.

Sure. But that offseason was completely different. Darvish was the big fish projected to sign a deal way larger than what he got. That was back when even the Dodgers were worried about the luxury tax. Darvish didn't sign til just before Spring Training and was only the second player to receive more than a 3 year contract. No one was spending that year.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, Cuzi said:

Sure. But that offseason was completely different. Darvish was the big fish projected to sign a deal way larger than what he got. That was back when even the Dodgers were worried about the luxury tax. Darvish didn't sign til just before Spring Training and was only the second player to receive more than a 3 year contract. No one was spending that year.

What you are saying is true. But it really doesn’t matter. The basic point is it has been a long time since the Cubs actually targeted a guy and got him by bidding more than other teams. Whether we use Lester or Heyward or Darvish, it doesn’t matter. It has been in a long while and that is not acceptable for a major market team. 

[JunkyardWalrus]

I wish I could still lie to myself and hope Jed was saving his powder for Tucker, maybe I still can, but that’s just my masochistic tendencies.  

[Geographyhater8888]

1 hour ago, Cuzi said:

Sure. But that offseason was completely different. Darvish was the big fish projected to sign a deal way larger than what he got. That was back when even the Dodgers were worried about the luxury tax. Darvish didn't sign til just before Spring Training and was only the second player to receive more than a 3 year contract. No one was spending that year.

Sure, but if it came down to Darvish not being offered the years he wanted then what likely ends up Happening with Jed is he offers Darvish less $, negotiations stall by creating an unnecessary bidding war and another team poaches him because Jed would never spend more than $1 above the second highest bid for the sake of “efficient spending”. Craig Kimbrel also comes to mind.

Devin Williams preference was the Cubs too, much like Heyward and of course he’s short on years.

I think it’s more than just spending more $ than needed. And then if the Rickets don’t allow deferrals it’s impossible to write someone a blank check, 

Edited January 3 by Geographyhater8888

[Cuzi]

19 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Sure, but if it came down to Darvish not being offered the years he wanted then what likely ends up Happening with Jed is he offers Darvish less $, negotiations stall and another team poaches him because Jed would never spend more than $1 above the second highest bid for the sake of “efficient spending”. Craig Kimbrel also comes to mind.

Devin Williams preference was the Cubs too, much like Heyward and of course he’s short on years.

I'll put it like this so its easier to understand.

With every top FA the Cubs have signed going back until Jon Lester, every single one of them have had a "but." The Cubs liked all of the SS, "but" they weren't paying for a Turner. The Cubs liked Darvish, "but" they weren't going to come close to his initial ask and ended up paying him well short of what top pitchers were getting. The Cubs liked Heyward, "but" they didn't even offer him the most money and he chose to join the Cubs because he didn't have to be "the guy".... so he chose the Cubs because he's a coward?

There's no but with Jon Lester. He was Theo's guy. They wen't out and had to convince him they weren't messing around and were going to win before they even believed that themselves and paid $20M more than the market.

[Geographyhater8888]

10 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I'll put it like this so its easier to understand.

With every top FA the Cubs have signed going back until Jon Lester, every single one of them have had a "but." The Cubs liked all of the SS, "but" they weren't paying for a Turner. The Cubs liked Darvish, "but" they weren't going to come close to his initial ask and ended up paying him well short of what top pitchers were getting. The Cubs liked Heyward, "but" they didn't even offer him the most money and he chose to join the Cubs because he didn't have to be "the guy".... so he chose the Cubs because he's a coward?

There's no but with Jon Lester. He was Theo's guy. They wen't out and had to convince him they weren't messing around and were going to win before they even believed that themselves and paid $20M more than the market.

I get your overall point. I’m going on a tangent about the philosophical differences between Jed and Theo. Tom not allowing deferrals likely plays a role too.

Edited January 3 by Geographyhater8888

[Bertz]

If you want to dream on Bichette IMO you're probably rooting for

Tucker -> Jays

Bregman -> Sox

And to a lesser extent 

Bellinger -> Dodgers

I don't suspect the Mets or Yankees are actually going to go after Bichette in earnest, but you'd probably want them to split Valdez and Suarez just to be safe.

[NorthsideAvenger]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

If you want to dream on Bichette IMO you're probably rooting for

Tucker -> Jays

Bregman -> Sox

And to a lesser extent 

Bellinger -> Dodgers

I don't suspect the Mets or Yankees are actually going to go after Bichette in earnest, but you'd probably want them to split Valdez and Suarez just to be safe.

Personally, I think the Cubs are done with their free agency, outside of of a few camp invites. So I am NOT expecting anything significant from the Cubs. 

[CubinNY]

11 hours ago, NorthsideAvenger said:

Personally, I think the Cubs are done with their free agency, outside of of a few camp invites. So I am NOT expecting anything significant from the Cubs. 

They won't go into ST without upgrading their starting pitching. I kind of love Zack Gallen for the Cubs. It may also come via a trade. They are chock-a-block full of outfielders all up. and down the system.

[Jason Ross]

Rosenthal: the Cubs remain "in the mix" with Bichette and Bregman. 

Quote

Bregman, who turns 32 in March, is four years older than Bichette, but a number of teams view his leadership as a difference-maker. The Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs are among the teams talking to both players, according to people briefed on the conversations. The Blue Jays have been in touch with both, too, but now appear more focused on Tucker.

Full article here

If the Blue Jays really are more focused on Tucker, the game of musical chairs for Bregman and Bichette does seem to favor the Cubs more here. Enough to get one? Well...