Padres (Buehler) vs Cubs (Rea): 7/1/26, 1:20pm

[Geographyhater8888]

14 hours ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

If the Cubs find a way to be 3 games back of Milwaukee going into the break, that would be a miracle.  That might even force the FO's hand to make a move earlier than the last minute.  

And they should get some guys coming back after the break like Cabrera and Taillon. 

Those are just bodies. We need people who can limit runs, not just provide depth. 

[BKHoo]

I’d bet on Soriano with Rojas and Ramirez being part of the deal.  He is a ground ball pitcher.  

[Brian707]

14 hours ago, mk49 said:

without a day off + a double header.  I'm hoping they'll go 6-5 or 5-6.

Lose 3 of 5 vs STL. Then 0-6 during the rest of that stretch. Thats what im hoping for 

[Rcal10]

48 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Those are just bodies. We need people who can limit runs, not just provide depth. 

I know he hasn’t really shown it yet this year, but I think Cabera is more than just depth. That said, we still need a solid starting pitcher added from outside the organization. I agree with that.

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Would Freddy Peralta apply here? I’m mixed on him but he’d still be our best starting pitcher and isn’t in the same stratosphere as Skubal.

Yeah, Peralta would work. I think he's been better than he seems, his xERA is 3.77z though his velo is down too. If you think it's a mechanical tweak or something he could be very good. 

He wouldn't be my top-choice, as I think controllable is a key need, but if they just go rental? Could do a lot worse. 

[Geographyhater8888]

44 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Yeah, Peralta would work. I think he's been better than he seems, his xERA is 3.77z though his velo is down too. If you think it's a mechanical tweak or something he could be very good. 

He wouldn't be my top-choice, as I think controllable is a key need, but if they just go rental? Could do a lot worse. 

The advantage of a rental over control is a lower price tag, and especially in Peraltas case with his mediocre numbers. I think? Acquiring someone who’d be our game 1 starter in a potential playoff series needs to be a top priority, which isn’t a high bar with the shape of the rotation. 
The price for Cabrera at the deadline was both Cassie and Wiggins which was an absurd price and it’ll be worse for anyone else on our radar, especially with uncertainty over the new CBA. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

19 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

The advantage of a rental over control is a lower price tag, and especially in Peraltas case with his mediocre numbers. I think? Acquiring someone who’d be our game 1 starter in a potential playoff series needs to be a top priority, which isn’t a high bar with the shape of the rotation. 
The price for Cabrera at the deadline was both Cassie and Wiggins which was an absurd price and it’ll be worse for anyone else on our radar, especially with uncertainty over the new CBA. 

It works out better for 2026, yes. But the downside is it doesn't fix 2027 or beyond. They still need to either make that commitment or a trade. 

I'm very much of the position that the Cubs have the prospect capital to just take care of the trade now, so do it if it's possible. 

Also the reported Caissie/Wiggins ask I don't believe. I have a reason for that beyond just guessing (I'm not an insider but I know a guy who knows a guy type thing). I think that is over reported and not entirely true. I do think the price was more than just Owen Caissie but believe the secondary pieces were not Wiggins. 

The Cubs, also, can afford that kind of deal. That's a top-50 and a fringe top-100 (that's where Wiggins sat). That's a Rojas+ Kepley (ish) package. I'm okay with that.

[Geographyhater8888]

23 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

It works out better for 2026, yes. But the downside is it doesn't fix 2027 or beyond. They still need to either make that commitment or a trade. 

I'm very much of the position that the Cubs have the prospect capital to just take care of the trade now, so do it if it's possible. 

Also the reported Caissie/Wiggins ask I don't believe. I have a reason for that beyond just guessing (I'm not an insider but I know a guy who knows a guy type thing). I think that is over reported and not entirely true. I do think the price was more than just Owen Caissie but believe the secondary pieces were not Wiggins. 

Control is ideal. I personally don’t want to discard 2026 either for the sake of being pragmatic. It cost them a trip a the LCS last year. If Wiggins wasn’t included was it more than Christian Hernandez and Cassie?

With over $100 million off the books and plenty of prospect capital they’ll have the money to add arms. A rental won’t cost Shaw either who’d likely be the primary piece in any trade for a controllable starting pitcher in the offseason. I’m not against a controlled starter for the record, as long one Is available at the deadline and better than Cabrera. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Control is ideal. I personally don’t want to discard 2026 either for the sake of being pragmatic. It cost them a trip a the LCS last year. If Wiggins wasn’t included was it still more than Christian Hernandez and Cassie?

With over $100 million off the books and plenty of prospect capital they’ll have the money to add arms. A rental won’t cost Shaw either who’d likely be the primary piece in any trade for a controllable starting pitcher. I’m not against a controlled starter for the record. 

I don't want to blow up this person's spot so I'll leave it as what it is. I just don't believe the ask was Caissie and Wiggins at the end. It was likely more than what they paid in the winter but the end cost was not that high in July. 

Free agency isn't a bad idea, however please remember; FA have agency and just because the Cubs go into that market doesn't mean they walk away with the guy. But they need a lot of things. They cannot fill two SP and 2 OF spots entirely from FA. I will say right now; I think it's a mistake to think the Cubs should fill RF and LF with Shaw and Ramirez. So I think $25m plus could go to a Happ or Suzuki re-up. They also need a BP and a bench, so add in $20m-$25m there. You're quickly down to $50m. And I think the Cubs will entirely be staying below the threshold. 

They're going to make a trade between now and next year. It's going to be for someone. And I think if you have a lot of hitting prospects the easy answer is "trade for a pitcher". If you can pay a slight premium today to ensure you have it done, and you get the value in 2026 and beyond? I'm all for it. It's the best choice. Just do it. You take out any concern about a FA bidding war. I don't think the Cubs are going to get into one for a pitcher. 

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I don't want to blow up this person's spot so I'll leave it as what it is. I just don't believe the ask was Caissie and Wiggins at the end. It was likely more than what they paid in the winter but the end cost was not that high in July. 

Free agency isn't a bad idea, however please remember; FA have agency and just because the Cubs go into that market doesn't mean they walk away with the guy. But they need a lot of things. They cannot fill two SP and 2 OF spots entirely from FA. I will say right now; I think it's a mistake to think the Cubs should fill RF and LF with Shaw and Ramirez. So I think $25m plus could go to a Happ or Suzuki re-up. They also need a BP and a bench, so add in $20m-$25m there. You're quickly down to $50m. And I think the Cubs will entirely be staying below the threshold. 

They're going to make a trade between now and next year. It's going to be for someone. And I think if you have a lot of hitting prospects the easy answer is "trade for a pitcher". If you can pay a slight premium today to ensure you have it done, and you get the value in 2026 and beyond? I'm all for it. It's the best choice. Just do it. You take out any concern about a FA bidding war. I don't think the Cubs are going to get into one for a pitcher. 

I agree. I want someone with at least 2 years beyond this year. If you have to lose two top 100 prospects plus a high ceiling young guy, so be it. If Shaw has to be in it instead of one of the top 100 prospects, that is fine too. This team deserves a chance at winning this year. Their offense and defense is good enough to be a serious threat in the playoffs. Get a good pitcher with time left so that’s one less thing next year as well as helping now. 

[Geographyhater8888]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I don't want to blow up this person's spot so I'll leave it as what it is. I just don't believe the ask was Caissie and Wiggins at the end. It was likely more than what they paid in the winter but the end cost was not that high in July. 

Free agency isn't a bad idea, however please remember; FA have agency and just because the Cubs go into that market doesn't mean they walk away with the guy. But they need a lot of things. They cannot fill two SP and 2 OF spots entirely from FA. I will say right now; I think it's a mistake to think the Cubs should fill RF and LF with Shaw and Ramirez. So I think $25m plus could go to a Happ or Suzuki re-up. They also need a BP and a bench, so add in $20m-$25m there. You're quickly down to $50m. And I think the Cubs will entirely be staying below the threshold. 

They're going to make a trade between now and next year. It's going to be for someone. And I think if you have a lot of hitting prospects the easy answer is "trade for a pitcher". If you can pay a slight premium today to ensure you have it done, and you get the value in 2026 and beyond? I'm all for it. It's the best choice. Just do it. You take out any concern about a FA bidding war. I don't think the Cubs are going to get into one for a pitcher. 

Which is what made signing Bregman so perplexing with Shaw already under control and a capable starting third baseman. It’s one of either he’s auditioning for a Starting outfield spot in 2027 and or simply finding him a position while they wait for their preferred pitcher to become available to flip him. I think if anyone is willing to take a team friendly, short term deal to stay it’s Happ.
 

Ramirez is the first to go no matter how much team control they’re getting for the right pitcher. There’s no fit for him.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Which is what made signing Bregman so perplexing with Shaw already under control and a capable starting third baseman. It’s one of either he’s auditioning for a Starting outfield spot in 2027 and or simply finding him a position while they wait for their preferred pitcher to become available to flip him. I think if anyone is willing to take a team friendly, short term deal to stay it’s Happ.
 

Ramirez is the first to go no matter how much team control they’re getting for the right pitcher. There’s no fit for him.

I don't agree that Ramirez is the first to go. I very much believe one of Shaw, Ramirez and Rojas will go, but that the Cubs are very open to the idea of moving any of the three. 

[Geographyhater8888]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I don't agree that Ramirez is the first to go. I very much believe one of Shaw, Ramirez and Rojas will go, but that the Cubs are very open to the idea of moving any of the three. 

He’s the guy I’d least hesitate to flip is what I meant. Especially for the right rental. 

[BKHoo]

I really want to keep Shaw.  I think he is already better than people realize.  Of course the Bregman deal does facilitate trading him.  I think that would be a mistake.  He is a very good player. But f he can play a corner outfield position at a high level we need to keep him.  

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

He’s the guy I’d least hesitate to flip is what I meant. Especially for the right rental. 

I'm equally fine moving any of the three. I would hesitate to move any three for a rental, however. Not because I'm opposed to a rental, but because I also believe these three represent the best chance to get the controllable player and I wouldn't want to ruin that. 

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm equally fine moving any of the three. I would hesitate to move any three for a rental, however. Not because I'm opposed to a rental, but because I also believe these three represent the best chance to get the controllable player and I wouldn't want to ruin that. 

This is where I am at with losing any of the 3 mentioned. I don’t want them traded for a rental. Otherwise any could go. And if the starting pitcher coming back has enough time of control left and is good enough, I am fine with 2 of them going. Save someone like Kepley or lower for a rental, if they go rental. 

Edited 41 minutes ago by Rcal10