Screw Winter Doldrums! The Get a Big Bat and Call It an Offseason Thread

[Geographyhater8888]

It shouldn’t be Gallen with 2 guaranteed years of control or bust. If the pitching lab feels he’s a mechanical tweak away from turning back the clock then you sign him to a deal on his terms to make the rotation better. 

Edited February 10 by Geographyhater8888

[BigbadB]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

It shouldn’t be Gallen without a player option or bust. If the pitching lab feels he’s mechanical tweak away from turning back the clock then you sign him to a deal on his terms to make the rotation better. 

That's where I would be at, also. I get that the roster is at risk of massive turnover, but it wouldn't be that hard to extend some of those guys before the season was over. It won't be that hard to bring some of them back with signings after the season. I never imagined that Gallen might be an option given the current glut of starters. I wouldn't let a 1 year opt out stop what could be their best shot at playoffs right now. 

[Rcal10]

4 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

It shouldn’t be Gallen with 2 guaranteed years of control or bust. If the pitching lab feels he’s a mechanical tweak away from turning back the clock then you sign him to a deal on his terms to make the rotation better. 

I agree. But I think his terms would be a one year opt out. And I don’t think the Cubs want to do that. I would rather just do a straight 4/$82M deal and no opt outs. Something like that. But if that isnt enough money for him, I’m not sure how much further the Cubs should go. That is why I say a deal with an opt out after 2 years is the best option. I wouldn’t sign him with a 1 year opt out. They lose him after 1, and a second round pick. I don’t like that idea. 

[Jason Ross]

4 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

It shouldn’t be Gallen with 2 guaranteed years of control or bust. If the pitching lab feels he’s a mechanical tweak away from turning back the clock then you sign him to a deal on his terms to make the rotation better. 

There's more to it than that. There's a lot of factors. First, he's attached to a QO. Secondly, how much does he improve the rotation? You can't just sign him to a one-year contract, pay a second round pick for a small increase. 

Everything has to make sense. That isn't to say a 1-year contract couldn't work out, but it's not as simple as "well I think we can improve him so whatever contract". If the Cubs behaved like a team, year-in-and-year-out that didn't care about this stuff we could have a different discussion. But I think this goes beyond "if" it simply makes the rotation better. It has to make it better in the magnitude that also accepts the loss of a QO for one year if that's the case.

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

There's more to it than that. There's a lot of factors. First, he's attached to a QO. Secondly, how much does he improve the rotation? You can't just sign him to a one-year contract, pay a second round pick for a small increase. 

Everything has to make sense. That isn't to say a 1-year contract couldn't work out, but it's not as simple as "well I think we can improve him so whatever contract". If the Cubs behaved like a team, year-in-and-year-out that didn't care about this stuff we could have a different discussion. But I think this goes beyond "if" it simply makes the rotation better. It has to make it better in the magnitude that also accepts the loss of a QO for one year if that's the case.

I think the only way him opting out after one year and the Cubs losing a draft pick works is if they win the WS next year and he pitches well. Which is why I don’t see the Cubs allowing an opt out after 1 year. They didn’t with Imai, I doubt they do with Gallen. Imai only cost the posting fee. And they didn’t do it. Don’t see them being ok with losing a second round pick. 

[Geographyhater8888]

19 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

There's more to it than that. There's a lot of factors. First, he's attached to a QO. Secondly, how much does he improve the rotation? You can't just sign him to a one-year contract, pay a second round pick for a small increase. 

Everything has to make sense. That isn't to say a 1-year contract couldn't work out, but it's not as simple as "well I think we can improve him so whatever contract". If the Cubs behaved like a team, year-in-and-year-out that didn't care about this stuff we could have a different discussion. But I think this goes beyond "if" it simply makes the rotation better. It has to make it better in the magnitude that also accepts the loss of a QO for one year if that's the case.

Yes. I’m ambivalent about Gallen at best. So if the front office feels it’s a good trade off then I’ll trust their judgement no matter how unlikely. The 2023 version of Gallen is worth a second round pick if there’s a scenario where they feel they can unlock something in him in my opinion. 

Edited February 10 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

19 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Yes. I’m ambivalent about Gallen at best. So if the front office feels it’s a good trade off then I’ll trust their judgement no matter how unlikely. The 2023 version of Gallen is worth a second round pick if there’s a scenario where they feel they can unlock something in him in my opinion. 

I'm all for Gallen. But it has to be a multi-year deal. It sounds like the Cubs would move Taillon in that case per Sharma and Mooney. The benefit of Gallen is both that he's better but also that he'd be there for 2027.

I think only one team would consider going one year, and it's Arizona because they won't lose the draft pick (they'd just not receive one). If I were Gallen I wouldn't sign that, however. You can hit FA quicker, but I don't think Arizona is really capable of fixing him. 

[Bertz]

I'm not the biggest BP guy but PECOTA loves the Cubs.  One of only four team projected over 90 wins.

[Geographyhater8888]

48 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm all for Gallen. But it has to be a multi-year deal. It sounds like the Cubs would move Taillon in that case per Sharma and Mooney. The benefit of Gallen is both that he's better but also that he'd be there for 2027.

I think only one team would consider going one year, and it's Arizona because they won't lose the draft pick (they'd just not receive one). If I were Gallen I wouldn't sign that, however. You can hit FA quicker, but I don't think Arizona is really capable of fixing him. 

Would they lose picks for going over the first line of the LT? They’d have to go over either way because dumping Tailon won’t offset Gallens AAV and they’re right on the line.

Edited February 10 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Gallen certainly has upside. Like I’ve stated before Horton, Steele and Cabrera I believe are keys to the rotation performing at a high level. Those are the guys who’ll keep in the park vs teams like the Mets and Phillies who crushed our pitching. Small sample size and just 2 examples but the pitching staff feasted off of lineups who make weak contact like the Pirates and Cardinals behind an elite defense. 

I think Gallen would fit with the 3 you mentioned to perform at a high level. That is why I would want him. Then you can get 3 of those 4, which gives you a better chance of actually getting 3 with high level performances.